Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55339
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2008 05:10

JEM, Brajesh Mishra was stated by BJP as speaking for himself. Same with Dr Kalam.

All this leads to Sridhar's questions why do these hawks want to live with it? Who knows, maybe they realize the true capabilties while the others are suffering cognitive dissonance.

Also for others whats the follow-up on the Lichtenstein accounts info from Merkel. The lack of interest in the list from the UPA govt might be a sudden pressure point for the deal.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby svinayak » 22 Jun 2008 05:10

Too many conspiracy theories in the above article.

:lol:

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rangudu » 22 Jun 2008 05:32

sraj wrote:And how would the above situation change if the reports about China supplying Pakistan with Chashma-III and IV are correct?

China and TSP have been leaking this on and off knowing fully well that China will not defy the NSG about TSP. China floated the equal-equal "non-discriminatory" plan in the NSG and it was shot down by everyone, including pro-China countries.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby sraj » 22 Jun 2008 06:24

Rangudu wrote:
sraj wrote:And how would the above situation change if the reports about China supplying Pakistan with Chashma-III and IV are correct?

China and TSP have been leaking this on and off knowing fully well that China will not defy the NSG about TSP. China floated the equal-equal "non-discriminatory" plan in the NSG and it was shot down by everyone, including pro-China countries.

on your first point (bolded): how come China continues to defy MTCR by supplying missiles to Pakistan.

on your second point: is that why Stephen Cohen recently floated the idea of dangling nuke cooperation in front of Pakistan as a way to stop the Generals from continuing to operate the Nuclear Wal-Mart?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rangudu » 22 Jun 2008 06:31

sraj,

I'm not China's keeper. You should know that MTCR is not like NSG. MTCR does not include a benefit to China like NSG does. A break with NSG would mean that China loses contracts it just signed with Areva and Westinghouse. MTCR was something China kinda sorta agreed to make Bill Clinton look good for all his China appeasement. There's a difference between shipping missile parts and building reactors in TSP. The former can happen with easy deniability. The latter is much harder to do.

BTW, if you have a point, say it openly. There's no need for this passive-aggressive dance. That kind of baiting and name calling (not by you) is the reason why many deal supporters stopped posting here.

Again, if you have a point, make it openly.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 06:43

If the deal does go through - India will be left holding a baby with many of the congenital defects that people have pointed out as well as some of the beauty that has been advertised.

But I think India will have to really do some tough negotiations after that. I don't think the deal alone will close all doors - but it certainly makes a nuclear test more unlikely. It is easy to argue (as I have done) that we would not have tested anyway. But that is a conspiracy theory.

The fears that India will become party to CTBT, FMCT etc after the deal is signed are just that, they are fears. I fear that my house may collapse any minute. Just like all our wishes are not always realised, there is no cast-Uranium guarantee that all our fears will be realised. But those fears will have to be kept in mind while we negotiate the best possible position for ourselves in the deal.

I just wonder if this deal will in any way enable us to have a say in China's current proliferation efforts. Right now our caste status does not allow us to do anything but whimper about China. The deal gives us reservation, but not job guarantee.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 07:08

sraj wrote:Prime Minister in high dudgeon

The fact of the matter is Mr Singh is as clueless about prevailing national sentiments and concerns as the Congress. Cocooned in the sanitised world of 7, Race Course Road and South Block, he has no idea about the anger that is boiling over in India's cities and villages as people struggle to keep their home fire burning. It will be hugely entertaining to hear Congress leaders, and their lackeys in the UPA, tell voters at election rallies that while the Government may have failed to hold the price line, it has succeeded in securing cockamamie guarantees of nuclear fuel supply, which in turn, at some distant date, will provide the people with nuclear power. What they will not mention is that nuclear power, when new reactors go critical more than a decade later, will be frightfully expensive and never contribute more than a tenth of India's requirement of electricity. So, never mind if you are hungry now, vote for the Congress.
[/quote]

This is a good and hard hitting article, but a sad one in many ways. The ideas about expensive nuke power and subsidization of the US' sleeping nuclear industry have all been brought up on BRF before, but even Kanchan Gupta eventually resorts to this last minute clutching at the straw of inflation - a straw that was difficult to clutch even 6 weeks ago. Even at that time Kaangress was playing the game of delaying - keeping fuel prices down artificially and everyone could see that.

I completely agree with the right of people opposed to the deal to have their say in opposing the deal, but the effort spent on analysing "How can we maximise our advantage if kaangress screws us and the deal is signed" has been minimal. Even here Kanchan Gupta is coining election manifestos for Congress and misses the point in his vitriol.

I think that the Congress may end up suicidally signing the deal - i.e signing and calling for elections. We have to look at a post deal scenario, and if the deal does not get signed - I would personally like to see some action on the nuclear front. But I am not at all certain that India can generate the political climate for that.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17076
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2008 07:10

On private parties participation in nuclear energy:

Jan 31, 2008 :: India can 'Share' Reactor Technology: Kakodkar

He said the NPCL was financially sound and there were no plans as of now to allow the private sector to build and operate nuclear power stations. However they may be considered for "investment in future projects", with the government retaining major stake in such projects.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17076
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2008 07:17

I see a near future effort to totally control FM world wide. Then to multi-laterally reduce nukes and missiles - starting with the US and Russia. This, I believe, will reduce or remove the need to test nukes.

GNEP will rule (with very hard sell) and that is where Indian efforts to build upon the three stage will be under pressure, since it will compete with the fundamental philosophy of GNEP. This is, IMHO, the major threat from this deal.

All current acronym-ed treaties will slowly merge into GNEP controls and be retired. So will IAEA and NSG in the longer run.

I think nukes as we know them will be replaced by less threatening (as in pollution and the like) weapons, with mostly rich nations dominating in that area.
Last edited by NRao on 22 Jun 2008 07:19, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 07:19

NRao what are FM and GNEP?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17076
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2008 07:20

FM = Fissile Material
GNEP

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 07:36

NRao wrote:I see a near future effort to totally control FM world wide.


This is exactly what enqyoob meant when he spoke of the way the US and the nuclear cartel are accounting for every atom of fissile material. That is also why this idea of obtaining Uranium from non-NSG nations is a myth.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 22 Jun 2008 07:38

I think nukes as we know them will be replaced by less threatening (as in pollution and the like) weapons, with mostly rich nations dominating in that area.


Weapons get replaced by deadlier, more accurate, more threatening ones. This has been the pattern throughout history.
Attempts at arms control, such as Pope Innocent II banning the crossbow in 1139, are doomed to failure.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Jagan » 22 Jun 2008 07:40

To all,

Please use the "report post" button if you feel any particular post is inappropriate.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17076
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2008 07:42

BTW, I should have added, that in the GNEP scenario, India would be considered a reprocessing nation - which is where under the 123 India would build the latest and greatest reprocessing facility. That is my read ....... I feel that IF India were to go it alone the rights for reprocessing would be reviewed or restricted in some ways (do not know how).

This is exactly what enqyoob meant when he spoke of the way the US and the nuclear cartel are accounting for every atom of fissile material. That is also why this idea of obtaining Uranium from non-NSG nations is a myth.


That is basics of GNEP - total control. Uranium supplier countries and reprocessing countries, with guaranteed delivery and price of Uranium.

However, as part of GNEP there will be no NSG - there, actually, cannot be a NSG or Non-NSG or even IAEA - GNEP will actually take over all those roles. What is of importance to India is that asd part of it so will the role of the three stage vanish. Recall that when the team visited India (AK was called 600lb G?) they offered a seat at GNEP to India ...... in short Uranium rules, Thorium cannot.

I think that is the main battle now, and, not testing (in India). Reprocessing is within GNEP not outside.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17076
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2008 07:43

Gerard wrote:
I think nukes as we know them will be replaced by less threatening (as in pollution and the like) weapons, with mostly rich nations dominating in that area.


Weapons get replaced by deadlier, more accurate, more threatening ones. This has been the pattern throughout history.
Attempts at arms control, such as Pope Innocent II banning the crossbow in 1139, are doomed to failure.


I actually had the Oz article you had referred to in mind when I typed that.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 22 Jun 2008 07:45

the way the US and the nuclear cartel are accounting for every atom of fissile material.


But after selecting the stoutest timbers, and building a formidable stockade, they discovered that a termite born in Bhopal had begun eating away at the very foundations. Now their structure is near collapse.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17076
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2008 07:47

he way the US and the nuclear cartel are accounting for every atom of fissile material.


THAT is Obama's open stand.

And, BTW, GNEP cannot come into play without total control over FM.

1.1 Purpose
The United States “will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations
to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies. This initiative will
help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies
and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists
for nuclear weapons. These new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe,
clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand.”1
GNEP seeks to bring about a significant, wide-scale use of nuclear energy, and to take actions
now that will allow that vision to be achieved while decreasing the risk of nuclear weapons
proliferation and effectively addressing the challenge of nuclear waste disposal. GNEP will
advance the nonproliferation and national security interests of the United States by reinforcing its
nonproliferation policies and reducing the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies,
and eventually eliminating excess civilian plutonium stocks that have accumulated.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 22 Jun 2008 08:17

Gerard wrote:
the way the US and the nuclear cartel are accounting for every atom of fissile material.


But after selecting the stoutest timbers, and building a formidable stockade, they discovered that a termite born in Bhopal had begun eating away at the very foundations. Now their structure is near collapse.


Gerard saab adaab, Janab aap ka post jo hai, meri umeed hai ki apne bhailog samaj jayenge!
very eloquent indeed, it takes lots of intelligence to decipher what you have said.
I applaud your audacity of hope.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 22 Jun 2008 08:32

Gerard wrote:
the way the US and the nuclear cartel are accounting for every atom of fissile material.


But after selecting the stoutest timbers, and building a formidable stockade, they discovered that a termite born in Bhopal had begun eating away at the very foundations. Now their structure is near collapse.


On that note, let me post a video of CIGI(International Governance Innovation Conference) - 2007, which I've recently received from a friend. Ayatollah Cirincione has put up a performance worthy of an Oscar.

Watch Online :
CIGI(International Governance Innovation Conference) - 2007
Joseph Cirincione's Address
File Size :124 mb
File Format : mp4
Duration : ~1 hr
Topics : GNEP, CTBT, FMCT, India, "Climate Change" :roll: and Non-Proliferation

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Johann » 22 Jun 2008 08:40

Gerard wrote:
I think nukes as we know them will be replaced by less threatening (as in pollution and the like) weapons, with mostly rich nations dominating in that area.


Weapons get replaced by deadlier, more accurate, more threatening ones. This has been the pattern throughout history.
Attempts at arms control, such as Pope Innocent II banning the crossbow in 1139, are doomed to failure.


It is a fact that attempts to ban *war-fighting* weapons face huge difficulties.

However, nucler weapons have only been used as war-fighting weapons in ONE campaign, 63 years ago when they were brand new.

There is a reason for that.

Nuclear weapons are *not* war-fighting weapons; they are something else. They are instead the ultimate guarantee against catastrophic defeat.

Secondly, how many armed forces continue to operationally plan on using expanding bullets or chemical weapons on the battlefield? These are war-fighting weapons, but thanks to conventions their use has been sharply limited to a handful of conflicts in the last 90 years, which have seen hundreds of wars.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby rocky » 22 Jun 2008 08:50

Yeah, but it didn't start that way. The very concept of MAD came up because of the massive build up of nuclear weapons for pure warfighting purposes, not just for pure deterrence.

Once the proliferation of weapons was done to the appropriate extent desired, the bar was raised to make them "strategic weapons".

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 08:51

Gerard wrote:
the way the US and the nuclear cartel are accounting for every atom of fissile material.


But after selecting the stoutest timbers, and building a formidable stockade, they discovered that a termite born in Bhopal had begun eating away at the very foundations. Now their structure is near collapse.


Actually, if it is near collapse it is because their own left hand did not bother about what right hand was doing and it was felt that the entire world could be made to look like ch***ya by the "free world"

But what should India's role be? India's role may seek to break a gap in those stout timbers, but it should not forget the need to eradicate old and new termites as well. If India seeks to eradicate Bhopali termite, India cannot look sympathetically at Persian termite.

Timber protected nations consider India as being on the same side as termite

India wants to be in timber club but could do nothing about termite

Bhopali termite is much sought after by everyone except India.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 22 Jun 2008 09:12

Johann wrote:
Gerard wrote:
I think nukes as we know them will be replaced by less threatening (as in pollution and the like) weapons, with mostly rich nations dominating in that area.


Weapons get replaced by deadlier, more accurate, more threatening ones. This has been the pattern throughout history.
Attempts at arms control, such as Pope Innocent II banning the crossbow in 1139, are doomed to failure.


It is a fact that attempts to ban *war-fighting* weapons face huge difficulties.

However, nucler weapons have only been used as war-fighting weapons in ONE campaign, 63 years ago when they were brand new.

There is a reason for that.

Nuclear weapons are *not* war-fighting weapons; they are something else. They are instead the ultimate guarantee against catastrophic defeat.

Secondly, how many armed forces continue to operationally plan on using expanding bullets or chemical weapons on the battlefield? These are war-fighting weapons, but thanks to conventions their use has been sharply limited to a handful of conflicts in the last 90 years, which have seen hundreds of wars.


I would not be so sure. There are US Army veterans who have pointed out that atomic weapons have been used in Afghanistan.

when you have many daisy cutters blowing up, there is nothing to restrict a miniature nuke blowing up in between since there are no technically proficient Afghanis nor do they have any geiger counters in Kahdahar to decide if what has been exploded is strictly a 'daisy cutter'.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 09:23

Raju wrote:when you have many daisy cutters blowing up, there is nothing to restrict a miniature nuke blowing up in between since there are no technically proficient Afghanis nor do they have any geiger counters in Kahdahar to decide if what has been exploded is strictly a 'daisy cutter'.


This is good news for India. That means that we can do atmospheric tests over remote areas and keep them isolated so that nobody can check the radiation. It also means that there are no satellites positioned over the earth doing 24x7 monitoring for bright, hot flashes of radiation on earth.

A lot of the objections to the nuclear deal are removed by this good news.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 22 Jun 2008 09:58

This is good news for India.


This is not good news for India. All the surveillence capability in the world is unavailable for a US test but will suddenly be available for any one else's test.

link

The similarities of BLU and GBU detonations to nuclear blasts was not lost on U.S. war planners, who realized that the blast effects and resulting radioactive fallout from conventional bunker-busters could mask the detonation of so-called “low-yield” B61-11 tactical nuclear bombs.


link

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 10:15

Raju wrote:
This is good news for India.


This is not good news for India. All the surveillence capability in the world is unavailable for a US test but will suddenly be available for any one else's test.

link


This reminds me of a gaming scenario that I once came across:

Arvind and Asha were found holding hands and exchanging kisses in a dimly lit corner of a restaurant.

Two theories came up to explain this:

1) Arvind and Asha are in love

and

2) Arvind loves Shanthi, Shanthi loves Mohan, Asha loves Mohan, but Arvind and Asha are sitting and necking to make Mohan and Shanthi jealous.

Problem is that there was no independent corroboration to prove or disprove either of these theories. So they remained conspiracy theories. Each had its proponents and opponents

Last I heard, Arvind and Asha's third grandchild was born (and named Shanthi) , but the theories remain as they were. Conspiracy theories.

But never mind that. It is still good news for India.

After all the world's ONLY superpower, the US has used its brahmastra - nuclear bombs against Afghanistan and has still not won the war against the ragtag Taliban. And even the great America is restricted to covertly using small nukes rather than its great jealousy-and-heartburn causing megaton bombs tested 100000000 times. This proves that all those big nukes are totally useless - as useless as the small ones.

Makes the nuclear deal, FMCT and CTBT look more attractive now.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 22 Jun 2008 10:50

Problem is that there was no independent corroboration to prove or disprove either of these theories. So they remained conspiracy theories. Each had its proponents and opponents


And there will be no independent corroboration in future as well. Just look at the rate of birth defects in that area and come to your own honest conclusion.

and has still not won the war against the ragtag Taliban.


for winning the war against Taliban they had to nuke the safe sanctuaries in Pakistan as well.

But under Hyde Act even testing a device with one pound yield by India is forbidden and is in contravention of nuclear deal terms.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 11:06

Raju wrote:
Problem is that there was no independent corroboration to prove or disprove either of these theories. So they remained conspiracy theories. Each had its proponents and opponents


And there will be no independent corroboration in future as well. Just look at the rate of birth defects in that area and come to your own honest conclusion.

and has still not won the war against the ragtag Taliban.


for winning the war against Taliban they had to nuke the safe sanctuaries in Pakistan as well.

But under Hyde Act even testing a device with one pound yield by India is forbidden and is in contravention of nuclear deal terms.


It's all very well to point out the real truth as you are doing, but what finally counts is what is generally perceived as true. What is generally perceived as true may be all lies, but that's all that counts. The same thing holds true for arguments about "yield" and deterrence".

Nukes were actually used all the time from 1918 to 1945 in some part of the world or other. Birth defects in those parts will convince the people who want to believe this. But general perception tends to disregard this fact and stubbornly insists that nukes were used only on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact India used one nuke at Kargil. Luckily for us, nobody believes that. The US was for us on that day and switched off satellite surveillance. I want to make a web page on that.

In fact we all know that nukes were commonly used at the time of the Mahabharata war. In fact vested interest seek to prove that nukes were not used even at that time, and were first used only in 1945.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 22 Jun 2008 11:18

It's all very well to point out the real truth as you are doing, but what finally counts is what is generally perceived as true. What is generally perceived as true may be all lies, but that's all that counts.


So all discussion should be limited to what in general perception is considered solemn truth.
Else it must be vetted by Govt outlets or Govt-controlled media.
this should be clarified at the start of every thread.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 11:37

Raju wrote:
It's all very well to point out the real truth as you are doing, but what finally counts is what is generally perceived as true. What is generally perceived as true may be all lies, but that's all that counts.


So all discussion should be limited to what in general perception is considered solemn truth.
Else it must be vetted by Govt outlets or Govt-controlled media.
this should be clarified at the start of every thread.



And that is exactly what is being done. Everything that is not "generally perceived to be true" by a majority is called a conspiracy theory.

The real truth of course can never change no matter what the general perception is or no matter what the conspiracy theory is.

In my Arvind-Asha example above the only visible perceptions are that Arvind and Asha were seen necking in a restaurant and that they now have grandchildren. Everything else is conspiracy theory.

In Afghanistan the only visible perceptions are that the US is in there, denies using nukes, but has still not won the war. The US may actually have already won the war after using nukes and may be out of Afghanistan now, But these are not generally perceived to be true.

The real truth and what is believed to be true come closer and closer together the more time you spend looking at something and the more witnesses and evidence you collect. But they can never be the same. All its takes is for one person to say something different to make all other "evidence" at least partially untrue. In the final analysis only general perceptions count.

If I see a ball as being round, it will be round only if most people around me also see the ball as round. If one person says it is a cube, it will be a dispute. But the "general perception" gets dubbed as the truth and the odd one out becomes a "conspiracy theory". There is only so far that anyone can go telling the truth but luckily truth is not required so long as general perception of a majority can be modified.

A lot of time is spent on this forum by people seeking to change "general perception" by telling what they believe to be true. These people are accused of pushing conspiracy theories because they are saying things that are not generally perceived to be true. They may be telling the real truth but it does not matter one bit. They might as well talk to a wall. People will only believe what is generally perceived to be true. People in general are more stupid than politeness will allow regarding their descriptions. If you try an tell a group of people something that you feel is a fundamental truth, they will not believe it unless they hear the same thing from a multitude of sources over a long period of time. This is what you need to do if you want people to believe anything. Those who cannot do that are destined to live their lives being called "conspiracy theorists". And getting that reputation reduces their chances of ever being believed.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 22 Jun 2008 11:44

f the deal does go through - India will be left holding a baby with many of the congenital defects that people have pointed out as well as some of the beauty that has been advertised.

But I think India will have to really do some tough negotiations after that. I don't think the deal alone will close all doors - but it certainly makes a nuclear test more unlikely. It is easy to argue (as I have done) that we would not have tested anyway. But that is a conspiracy theory.

The fears that India will become party to CTBT, FMCT etc after the deal is signed are just that, they are fears. I fear that my house may collapse any minute. Just like all our wishes are not always realized, there is no cast-Uranium guarantee that all our fears will be realised. But those fears will have to be kept in mind while we negotiate the best possible position for ourselves in the deal.

I just wonder if this deal will in any way enable us to have a say in China's current proliferation efforts. Right now our caste status does not allow us to do anything but whimper about China. The deal gives us reservation, but not job guarantee.


Shiv it is not just fear - it is a self evident fact that once the nuclear deal is operationalized we cannot afford to do another round of nuclear weapons test as that will mean all the hundreds and thousands of crores invested in the second hand reactors and ordering uramium and related technology and material will be nothing more than rusting junks (don't forget LCA episode -not so long ago). The nuclear deal is CTBT by another name

Secondly the moment the deal is active 70% of of plutonium that we do or have the right to extract from the existing presurised heavy water reactors for our weapons programe will just cease to be available .Cutting off 70% of available fissile material in this case plutonium extractable from natural uranium irradiated in power reactors id not FMCT then what is .Again the nuclear deal is FMCT by another name


Only part of our nuclear power programe that is outside the purview of the nuclear deal is the fast breeder reactor programe -and thank God for that little mercy .As the fast breeder produces more plutonium than it consumes it can either be used to fuel the advanced heavy water reactor with thorium or build up the fissile material inventory . But then amount of plutonium we get out of 50 MW fast beeder test reactor is very little and the 500 MW prototype fast breeder reactor is some way off maybe from 2012 earliest .

In short if the deal is signed today and another one year for it to come into effect then for next 3/4 years our fissile material production read plutonium will be cut down to 1/3 or even less courtesy our generous prime minister ,our atomic energy chief and ofcourse leader of the masses

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 22 Jun 2008 11:49

N
ew reference levels based on recent samples show uranium levels 45 times normal. New bioassay studies identify uranium internal contamination in Spin Gar (Tora Bora) area and the City of Kabul are up to 200 times the level of the unexposed population. Surface water, rice fields and catch-basins adjacent to and surrounding the bombsites have high values of uranium, up to 27 times normal.

A small sample of Afghan civilians have shown "astonishing" levels of uranium in their urine, an independent scientist says.

Critics suspect new weapons were used in Afghanistan.

He said they had the same symptoms as some veterans of the 1991 Gulf war.

But he found no trace of the depleted uranium (DU) some scientists believe is implicated in Gulf War syndrome.

Other researchers suggest new types of radioactive weapons may have been used in Afghanistan.

The scientist is Dr Asaf Durakovic, of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) based in Washington DC.

Dr Durakovic, a former US army colonel who is now a professor of medicine, said in 2000 he had found "significant" DU levels in two-thirds of the 17 Gulf veterans he had tested.

In May 2002 he sent a team to Afghanistan to interview and examine civilians there.

The UMRC says: "Independent monitoring of the weapon types and delivery systems indicate that radioactive, toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads were being used by the coalition forces."
Shock results

It says Nangarhar province was a strategic target zone during the Afghan conflict for the deployment of a new generation of deep-penetrating "cave-busting" and seismic shock warheads.

The UMRC says its team identified several hundred people suffering from illnesses and conditions similar to those of Gulf veterans, probably because they had inhaled uranium dust.

Bomb damage was widespread

To test its hypothesis that some form of uranium weapon had been used, the UMRC sent urine specimens from 17 Afghans for analysis at an independent UK laboratory.

It says: "Without exception, every person donating urine specimens tested positive for uranium internal contamination.

"The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf veterans tested in 1999.

"If UMRC's Nangarhar findings are corroborated in other communities across Afghanistan, the country faces a severe public health disaster... Every subsequent generation is at risk."

It says troops who fought in Afghanistan and the staff of aid agencies based in Afghanistan are also at risk.
Scientific acceptance

Dr Durakovic's team used as a control group three Afghans who showed no signs of contamination. They averaged 9.4 nanograms of uranium per litre of urine.

The average for his 17 "randomly-selected" patients was 315.5 nanograms, he said. Some were from Jalalabad, and others from Kabul, Tora Bora, and Mazar-e-Sharif. A 12-year-old boy living near Kabul had 2,031 nanograms.

Troops and aid workers could be at risk The maximum permissible level for members of the public in the US is 12 nanograms per litre, Dr Durakovic said.

A second UMRC visit to Afghanistan in September 2002 found "a potentially much broader area and larger population of contamination". It collected 25 more urine samples, which bore out the findings from the earlier group.

Dr Durakovic said he was "stunned" by the results he had found, which are to be published shortly in several scientific journals.
Identical outcome

He told BBC News Online: "In Afghanistan there were no oil fires, no pesticides, nobody had been vaccinated - all explanations suggested for the Gulf veterans' condition.

"But people had exactly the same symptoms. I'm certainly not saying Afghanistan was a vast experiment with new uranium weapons. But use your common sense."

The UK Defence Ministry says it used no DU weapons in Afghanistan, nor any others containing uranium in any form.

A spokesman for the US Department of Defense told BBC News Online the US had not used DU weapons there. He could not comment on Dr Durakovic's findings of elevated uranium levels in Afghan civilians.


http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KIR305A.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 11:57

Shankar wrote:Shiv it is not just fear - it is a self evident fact that once the nuclear deal is operationalized we cannot afford to do another round of nuclear weapons test as that will mean all the hundreds and thousands of crores invested in the second hand reactors and ordering uramium and related technology and material will be nothing more than rusting junks (don't forget LCA episode -not so long ago). The nuclear deal is CTBT by another name


May I reword your statement to indicate what I mean? I will merely add a series of dots between two words

Shankar wrote:Shiv it is not just fear - it is a self evident fact that once the nuclear deal is operationalized we cannot afford to do another round of nuclear weapons test as that will mean .......................................... all the hundreds and thousands of crores invested in the second hand reactors and ordering uramium and related technology and material will be nothing more than rusting junks (don't forget LCA episode -not so long ago). The nuclear deal is CTBT by another name


The dots indicate a particular time interval between signing and spending "hundreds and thousands of crores "

As a minor digression, I once failed in second standard. i did not intend to fail, but I did. Having failed, I had to face the fact that I had failed.

Returning to topic. Let us suppose the nuclear deal is signed. This will not make "hundreds and thousands of crores" vanish instantly. There will be a prolonged process of negotiation. What can we do in that period to salvage anything for ourselves?

i believe we have spent enough time saying what is bad about the deal, just like my mother spent enough time saying what was bad about failing in second standard. But I failed anyway.

So if India "fails" and signs the deal, what next?

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 22 Jun 2008 12:07

In my Arvind-Asha example above the only visible perceptions are that Arvind and Asha were seen necking in a restaurant and that they now have grandchildren. Everything else is conspiracy theory.


Instead of Arvind-Asha analogy let me take another analogy.
Let us take Jayanti Natarajan, Congress Spokeswoman who gives weekly updates on nuclear deal as the ultimate arbitor of truth. Now we all know that if an interviewer asks Jayanti Natarajan in one of those innumerable 'debates' on media of whether such a budding alliance before election is a possibility. She dismissed it as absolute rubbish. :)
Now you and me may know that she is denying reality because it is inconvenient to her or her party.
Yet what she denies is suddenly in the realm of 'rubbish' or 'conspiracy theories' and all of the people who believe
otherwise are 'conspiracy theorists' and 'rumor mongers' who have malafide intent towards her party. viz Congress.
But those with their ears to the ground shall know that there are moves being made in exactly the direction which Jayanti has just pronounced as rubbish.

The real truth and what is believed to be true come closer and closer together the more time you spend looking at something and the more witnesses and evidence you collect. But they can never be the same. All its takes is for one person to say something different to make all other "evidence" at least partially untrue. In the final analysis only general perceptions count.


A lot of time is spent on this forum by people seeking to change "general perception" by telling what they believe to be true. These people are accused of pushing conspiracy theories because they are saying things that are not generally perceived to be true. They may be telling the real truth but it does not matter one bit. They might as well talk to a wall. People will only believe what is generally perceived to be true. People in general are more stupid than politeness will allow regarding their descriptions. If you try an tell a group of people something that you feel is a fundamental truth, they will not believe it unless they hear the same thing from a multitude of sources over a long period of time. This is what you need to do if you want people to believe anything.


thanks for bringing up this point. In reality people react differently. At first they scream in absolute disbelief and fling abuses and make fun of the messenger or silently grimace depending upon their depth of their belief, some just squint and narrow their eye in disbelief/suspiscion and turn the page. But if the same theory is stated often at more than one juncture and more than one instance in a multitude of events then it puts the seeds of doubt into the very same people that started out by making fun of the theory and its messenger. It is said even a lie that is repeated many times will become the truth.

G. W. Bush has stated that he ventured out into Iraq to confiscate *Weapons of Mass Destruction* and he and his minions have uttered this so many times that this has become the solemn truth and even Bush's PA and UN Chief Inspector claiming otherwise makes no difference to Bush. The people of world are totally silent at these revelations partially due to their own helplessness and partially due to indoctrination. So even a lie proclaimed many times becomes the solemn acceptable truth. If some new member or a random posting member comes to the forum and says Bush launched Iraq war to seek and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He/she retains a high chance of going away unmolested for this assertion.

So if a lie uttered more than once can become truth in public perception.
then a truth uttered many times is far more powerful than a lie .. isn't it.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 22 Jun 2008 12:30

SONIA’S UPA GOVT: THE FINE ART OF DOING NOTHING
By M.J.AKBAR
22 JUNE 2008



Sensible politicians are wary of big words: they never know when one will rebound and bite them, with painful consequences. The philosophy of power is one word too many in a phrase about politics. Politicians keep their nose to the ground, philosophy out of their thoughts, and their conscience in a safe deposit vault, so that, while it remains out of sight, it can always be taken out, brushed up and put on display when expedient.

And yet, everyone who exercises power does so on the basis of some logic, even if we cannot in justice extend its meaning to the expanse of a philosophy. You have to be not merely very brave, but also intellectually robust to be a disciple of Kautilya, or even of Machiavelli. Their treatises on governance are more comprehensive and demanding than their one-liner reputations might lead you to believe. The only Indian Prime Minister who saw himself as a potential Kautilya, as early as in the 1930s, and had the intellectual bravado to pull it off in the 1950s, was Jawaharlal Nehru. Mrs Indira Gandhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee had read enough to appreciate the nuances of a Kautilya, but they chose to stress different elements of the Arthashastra prescription, creating vastly different medicines for the national health.

No Government of India has been as minimalist as the UPA regime. For over four years now it has survived on a simple basis: Do nothing, and nothing unfortunate will happen.
There are some good reasons for this.

The central motivation of the UPA coalition has been fear of failure. It wanted to survive in office above all else. It knew that the alliance was brittle, and so compromised on two basic elements of power. No action was ever taken on the corruption or misrule of ministers, for fear that it would break the alliance. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could not possibly have had two standards on corruption, a wink for allies like the DMK, and a taskmaster's discipline for Congress ministers. So when DMK ministers began raking in the loot like there was no tomorrow (and maybe for some of them there isn't) Congress ministers welcomed the signal. They got a free ride on a highway without tolls, and, being seasoned Congressmen, devised artful and even brilliant forms of bribery. I believe the fashionable thing to do now is to ignore silly old cash, and settle for benaami equity in private sector companies. Ministers with less imagination used power to get benefits for companies owned by relatives.

Ritu Sarin of the Indian Express has done some superb investigation of how rules were bent and laws broken to favour a distillery owned by Home Minister Shivraj Patil's son Shailesh. You only associated the Home Minister with starched clothes, white shoes, pomade and cluelessness, did you? Well, he had a distillery up his armpit.

What will happen?
Nothing.

Any action might cost Dr Singh his job and his boss, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, her reputation.
The Hindustan Times story on uranium might not have the drama of the Express investigation but it is, in a sense, even more damaging. It undermines the very basis of Dr Singh's arguments in defence of the Indo-US nuclear deal, that India needs foreign uranium for its civil nuclear programme. As Neelesh Misra reports, "India has been sitting on massive, untapped reserves of uranium, hundreds of tonnes of which have been discovered over the past couple of years – adding to the over 1 lakh tonnes already identified in Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu." That is enough for our requirements for at least 40 years. Why did the Prime Minister keep this a closely guarded secret for four years?

What will happen? Why, nothing of course. To do anything would mean that the Prime Minister would have to appear on national television and cough discreetly before declaring himself guilty of misleading the country.


Dr Singh learnt what little he knows of politics from P.V. Narasimha Rao, a Prime Minister who perfected the art of doing nothing, and flaunted indecision as a decision. The epitome of this model was reached on 6 December 1992 when, in an unparalleled display of comatose indifference Rao did nothing while the Babri mosque was being destroyed through the day. Singh was Finance Minister then, and arguably the most important minister after Rao. What did Dr Singh do? So much of nothing that you could write a book on silence out of it. But here is the surprise. The government got away with it. Rao manipulated the still dominant government audiovisual media from the evening of 6 December, sold a lie, and the Congress won a handsome victory in the Assembly elections held a year later.

Moral of the story? If you do nothing successfully enough, you can always drift back to power.

The danger of doing nothing is that it can become a habit. Witness how government has tackled rising prices. Measures against inflation should have been put in place in December last year. The government did nothing. By March this horse, inflation, had bolted. However hard the government slams the door now, the damage is done.

Narasimha Rao could legitimately claim some redemption in his record. He did do something in one area, the economy. He might not have done what he did were it not for the financial emergency he inherited; and he certainly could have done more, as Dr Singh would attest. But economic reforms will stand against his name.

The record of the last four years, in contrast, is marked by only one significant departure from the norm: the Indo-US nuclear deal. That deal seems to have been sacrificed to survival. The Dr Singh years add up to a fragile zero. Perhaps the Prime Minister is beginning to understand this. Those who saw him on television asking ministers to stop going abroad in order to save Indians from the whiplash of rising prices were not overly impressed.

His mien was never very colourful, although he could be brisk. If he began as a grey man, he has deepened towards an ashy pallor. The price of power was visible in his eyes. You might imagine that if you do nothing, nothing will happen to you. Your eyes betray you.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 12:37

Raju wrote:So if a lie uttered more than once can become truth in public perception.
then a truth uttered many times is far more powerful than a lie .. isn't it.


Raju this will be my last post on this subject

There is no such thing as real truth and real lies. There are only two entities that replace the words. I will re-iterate my view"

general belief=truth
generally not believed=conspiracy theory==lie

Either of these may be a real truth or a real lie. but that hardly matters. What is important is that when a person is told that he is speaking a "conspiracy theory " it means "I don't believe what you are saying" The speaker may continue to say the same thing - but the effect of repeating his words may depend on his karma more than anything els.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 12:40

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/N-de ... 152487.cms
Why rush N-deal now? Govt wants quick IAEA, NSG nod
22 Jun 2008, 0008 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi,TNN
NEW DELHI: Is there any particular reason why the Prime Minister - otherwise perfectly willing to be walked on by his Left allies - is being stubborn on the nuclear deal? Apart from inflation figures on the rise, what has changed between the last UPA-Left meeting in May and now?

The second is easy to answer - the PM doesn't want to go to Hokkaido for the G-8 summit on July 8 and mouth empty rhetoric on "consensus building" on the deal.

It's pretty clear to the whole world that he cannot get an international agreement of the scale and scope of the nuclear deal through his own government. His credibility is at an all time low.

Although he has delayed things for too late, what the PM wants is India should be able to hand over the safeguards text to the IAEA board of governors latest by July, so they can complete ratification within 45 days, which they have asked for.

Since August is a month-long holiday in both US and Europe, even if the board of governors goes through the document at lightning speed, the earliest the US and others like France and Russia can call an extraordinary plenary of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) would be September-October.

This part will be the hardest sell. For starters, the US and other supporters of the deal would have to fight off countries who will demand a meeting of the consultative committee of the NSG before the plenary.

Now, Indian and US officials have briefed the consultative committee several times already, the latest being May in Berlin. So they would push for the plenary, but it remains to be seen whether others like China and Japan want to go for the plenary straight off.

The best case scenario is that the NSG will take at least two to three sittings to decide on an exemption for India, and that too under tremendous pressure not only from the US, but also France, Russia and UK. Here lies one of the weak links of the timeline the UPA government is banking on.

This is the place where the Bush administration will have to mount its strongest showing - but with the administration haemorrhaging top officials every day, America is getting weaker and weaker. In fact, the Left rightly calculated that the longer they take over the deal, the less would be its chances of going through.

Everybody likes to believe that once the government goes to the IAEA for the ratification it's a cakewalk from there on. They couldn't be further from the truth. Many countries have asked for more time to study the agreement which may be based on a template, but has enough unique features in it to warrant closer inspection.

Mohammed El Baradei, the director of the IAEA, may be a friend of the deal, but he can in no way stop countries from taking their time with the agreement. Any attempt to ram through the agreement will have deleterious effects.

Besides, just like the Left, its mentors in the international arena, China, would do its damnedest to delay the deal further. So nobody in the government really believes this can be done at the drop of a hat.

The costs of Indian delay is already being felt - as the Left intended them too. As one analyst put it, "The government is incompetent, the Left is malicious and the right downright petty."

The government thought it could ride out the inflation crisis and the food prices issue by just waiting for the storm to pass.

It's not going to do that any time soon. Oil prices will remain high, food prices will go up further, because among other things, flooding in Iowa and Mississippi and a burgeoning fertilizer crisis in India will adversely impact food prices.

Closer home, the uranium shortage is already hitting India's power plants - they're functioning well below capacity and it won't be long before the first ones are shut down, though we will be told its for maintenance only.

Externally, the Bush administration with its overt goodwill for India cannot really bat for India any more - it's winding down, its international standing is low and the rest of the world is already looking beyond Bush.

Tony Blair has gone in the UK and Gordon Brown is too busy with his own standing to worry too much about expending energy for India. Dmitry Medvedev in Russia just doesn't have the same thing for India that Vladimir Putin developed (however little).

And Nicolas Sarkozy - well, nobody's quite sure whether he would step up to the table. In Japan, the Indophile Shinzo Abe's gone and Yasuo Fukuda is not enamoured of India in the same way. In Australia, Kevin Rudd has an open love affair going on with China. So where's the easy support?

Which is why it's even more important to get the IAEA ratification over with as soon as possible. There is a then at least a fighting chance that India can clear at least to more crucial steps - with the IAEA and NSG - before the year is out. The US Congress in a new administration will be a challenge but with an NSG exemption under its belt, India can arguably look at other partners for nuclear commerce.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby JE Menon » 22 Jun 2008 13:11

Ramana,

re Mishra and Kalam... Pls see below from the BJP spokesman... They are balancing on a fine line, and rightly so. They are doing exactly what they should be doing. Of course, the BJP claims Mishra's comment was his own... or else we would not be having this discussion at all. Question is whether his comment was just something he decided to do on his own, without any sort of discussion with the BJP stalwarts. I judge otherwise. As for Kalam, surely his words now are no less weighty and influential on the public stage, although he might no longer have constitutional power.

>>Mr. Prasad justified the BJP’s continued opposition to the deal — although on Saturday it almost seemed to urge the government to go ahead with it — despite the green signal to it from the former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and the former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

PS - This Mulford is an insufferable *&%!. He is revealing thoughts and perceptions he should not, but being from a business background I guess he is not finely tuned to the ways of the NPA quite yet. He should not be giving them talking points... Somebody should zip his mouth or at least vet his comments, THOROUGHLY.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Sanatanan » 22 Jun 2008 14:38

NRao wrote:BTW, I should have added, that in the GNEP scenario, India would be considered a reprocessing nation - which is where under the 123 India would build the latest and greatest reprocessing facility. That is my read ....... I feel that IF India were to go it alone the rights for reprocessing would be reviewed or restricted in some ways (do not know how).


I am not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that India will join GNEP as a "supplier" (of reprocessed reactor fuel) country as opposed to a "recipient" country?

Inida was to have been classified as a "recipent" country -- not as a "reprocessing" country. Has there been a change in this stance in recent times?

In this regard:

a) Mr. S. Varadarajan's blog entry of 01 March 2006 titled: "Was Bush speech a warning on separation? Relegating India to status of 'recipient state' in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership seen as pressure tactic".

b) Long-Term Sustainability of Nuclear Fission Energy – DOE’s Programs (Page 14/18)
The Department {US DOE} is planning to design, construct and operate these demonstration facilities in the next 10-15 years. {So commercial operations are likely to be say at least 2 to 3 decades away from now. I recollect seeing reports that said there is a reduction of funding for GNEP.}


c) WMD Insights, March 2008
India, which is deciding whether to commit to a separate bilateral civil nuclear energy agreement with the United States, has also declined invitations to join GNEP. {The phrase "join GNEP" is a bit of "Ashwatthama" in the the sense that the so-called "invitation" to India was, as I understand, only as a recipient country.} In a February 2006 news conference, Sell said that "once India has met its nonproliferation commitments, that in addition to expanded civil nuclear cooperation, which was originally talked about, we would also look forward to expanding our cooperation and our partnership with India on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.”

Yet, many Indians worry that doing so might constrain their ability to enrich uranium or reprocess spent nuclear power plant fuel, issues that have also complicated the proposed U.S.-Indian deal. One analyst warned that Washington “is trying to do an end-run around India’s stand on the proposed separation of its civilian and military nuclear facilities by suggesting that Indian participation in a new American-sponsored global nuclear initiative is conditional on the acceptance of in-perpetuity international safeguards on the overwhelming majority of its nuclear facilities, including reprocessing plants.”


d) GNEP - Operating Documents -- As of February 26, 2008:

21 Partners: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Ghana, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States

3 Observers: IAEA, Generation IV International Forum (GIF), Euratom

17 Candidate Partner and Observer Countries: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey

India does not belong to any of the castes as above.

Interestingly, it seems that 3 of the top 5 non-NSG countries Niger, Namibia, and Uzbekistan, with plenty of U to spare, also do not belong in GNEP as of now.

In my opinion, even if not explicitly stated in its "Objectives" documents, a main raison d'etre of GNEP is to prevent India from being a competitor to the P5 (haves) in reprocessing. This the US would want to ensure, whether or not India signs the 123.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests