India nuclear news and discussion

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 23:08

RM I worked for 15 years in nuke powers industry and dont like GE BWRS for the number of problems they have in plant design. The initial cost is lower than PWRs as the reactor vessel does not operate at high pressure. However to contain the accident products they have to dump the products in the after structure. All power reactors have to do it but due to the steam being generated as opposed to water the dumping is at high frequency. The net effect is to design the buildings to 200 hz(Eqk + high freq loads) while the PWR plants need to be designed for ~ 33hz (eqk loads). So buliding cost go up quite bit. Also the two suppliers you mention also produce PWRs so there will be consistency in the product. True there is nostalgia for GE as they supplied the BWRs for Tarapur.But they are nothing but trouble. One can look at US plants and see how many are GE type BWRs and others. In the end it will be political decision to award the GE contracts. Maybe throw in LCA engines!

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby harbans » 11 Sep 2008 23:08

This diplomatic coup was all the more notable because India is the reason the cartel exists. It was formed to prevent a repeat of India’s 1974 nuclear test


Thats the reason why these folks are so pissed off. The cartel exists ONLY for India. Not for Pakis, Chinese, NK, Iran. ONLY India. India is the ORIGINAL and SOLE Axis of evil for the NPAs. So Chinese-Pak proliferation is OK. India has to be subjagated under 4 letter discriminatory treaties.

Bush came into office never ever travelled abroad and was pleasantly surprised that Institutional organizations in US and elsewhere were sidelining a major democracy and non-proliferator. Remember Bush is the guy that presided over the AQ Khan fiasco. And he made up his mind to bring India in. He did his best. Personally i admire Bush for this more than any other US President in history. He did what was right. And stood by it. Convinced those in his adminstration. And bulldozed it through these blinkered institutions.

This will be Bush's legacy in the WH.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby John Snow » 11 Sep 2008 23:21

What about Westinghouse AP 1000?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 23:26

Westinghouse is usually PWR so the plant design is similar to others under consideration. In fairness to GE the "new loads" was discovered in mid 70s and caused a lot of heartburn and analysis updates that killed the industry as the fixes took long and were costly to implement. I have been out of that industry over last two decades. Maybe they fixed it but doubt it as there were no new plans ssince then in the US. If they want to sell newly fixed plant then its a guinea pig mode like Tarapur was. Tarapur was first of its kind BWR just coming in US.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Prem » 11 Sep 2008 23:28

MMS= Mr.Marathon to Sprint

Nuke deal to be brought to the US Congress today
NDTV Correspondent
Thursday, September 11, 2008, (Washington)
It's now almost certain that the Indo-US nuclear deal will be brought to the US Congress on Thursday.

A State Department spokesman has said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pushing to get the 123 agreement to the Congress by Thursday.

The Bush Administration is hoping to get the Congressional nod for the deal by the end of the session on September 26, which doesn't leave them with much time.

Indian Defence Minister AK Antony, who is in the United States, met Condoleezza Rice and the nuclear deal came up in their talks.

Meanwhile, Rice who has been talking to key lawmakers met Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. She has already met Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman who has publicly said the deal should not be pushed through.

She also met Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.

"The Secretary is pushing to get that up by the end of Thursday," said Sean McCormack, US State Department Spokesperson.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/st ... 00:00%20AM

Bush invites PM to White House on Sept 25

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sean » 11 Sep 2008 23:32

harbans wrote:
Bush came into office never ever travelled abroad and was pleasantly surprised that Institutional organizations in US and elsewhere were sidelining a major democracy and non-proliferator. Remember Bush is the guy that presided over the AQ Khan fiasco. And he made up his mind to bring India in. He did his best. Personally i admire Bush for this more than any other US President in history. He did what was right. And stood by it. Convinced those in his adminstration. And bulldozed it through these blinkered institutions.

This will be Bush's legacy in the WH.

Being a naturalized US citizen(India born), I did not vote for Bush in the last two elections. However, I do admire him for helping India with the NSG waiver. I do not know how history will treat him with respect to Iraq, but he should get credit for improved US-India relationship that is likely to come about due to NSG waiver.

It is my gut feeling that McCain will be a better friend of India than Obama will be. However, other factors are making me lean towards Obama in the next election. I do like Biden and see him as a friend of India, and expect him to influence Obama towards a pro-India position on the nuclear energy issue.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3566
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Paul » 11 Sep 2008 23:40

It has been my personal observation that most naturalized US citizens of Indian origin lean on democrat side even though it was the dems who erected the firewalls blocking India from trading in the global merchantile system and outsourced the policy of denuking india to PRC.

OTOH I do not blame the reps for arming pakistan in the aftermath of the soviet invasion of afghanistan, they wanted payback for vietnam They were looking after their own interests , wherand they did the same by initiating IUCNA. On the dems side they out of sheer spite, harbor the intention of putting India down. Most congressmen who against the IUCNA agreement are dems if I am not mistaken.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rahul M » 11 Sep 2008 23:43

Suraj wrote:NRao: we are referring to the following:
NRao wrote:Forgot to add, RU during the Georgian fiasco, explicitly stated that RU will support the US on the nuclear front.

And, of course, FR has stated that they feel that India is not ready - mature enough - to join the club.

thanks suraj.
NRao, this is the one I'm talking about.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 849
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Manny » 11 Sep 2008 23:48

The difference between democrats and Republicans when it comes to India nuclear issues... Its the republican who are willing and able to fight for it. The dems may have sympathy for the cause, but they won't fight for it.

The biggest anti India crowd are with the democrats. Barbara Boxer is the biggest villain on that front.

:)
Last edited by Manny on 11 Sep 2008 23:49, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 23:48

Most likely the HFC will send the agreement without recommendation so Berman can keep his NPA credentials intact.
Paul there are all sorts of coalition thats against the agreement. I dont want to demean it as a deal.

Dont forget Rep Burton is inspired by a different vision- Khalistanis. Sen. Boxer has evanjihadi interests. What was done is give them all a conveinent pinata to vent their anger on the US govt. The reason is they cant do anything against the US govt so they can transfer their anger at the pinata.

I still dont understand the Ireland's beef against India? What do the Dublin papers say? how come non of the chatterati in India are not looking into it?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 11 Sep 2008 23:51

Re Ramana

I am ignorant of these technical issues. But the point I was making that contract for 10 or so nuclear power plants should be given quickly by negotiated contracts. China I believe has given contracts for 4 plants to US and 4 to France, some to Russians. I think we should do the same, rather than dragging on the negotiations/tender for decades.

Incidently which per you is the best design to import in quantity?

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sean » 11 Sep 2008 23:57

Paul wrote:It has been my personal observation that most naturalized US citizens of Indian origin lean on democrat side even though it was the dems who erected the firewalls blocking India from trading in the global merchantile system and outsourced the policy of denuking india to PRC.

I do not have hard data on it, but I suspect 60-65% of Indian-Americans vote Democratic. However, Physicians/Dentists/Businessmen tend to be more Republican.

As for me, on most issues, like free trade, I agree with Republicans. But the near control of the party by Evangelical Christians, and the resulting focus on social issues has turned me off from the party.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 23:57

The US SD leaked letter hopes for only two plants. So no need to give them more as that will be hostages to future issues until they get the un-Hyde Act. I agree speed is of the essence for there are other things happening that need to be understood in concert. I am talking of unravelling TSP. The orders will keep the chatterati busy and well fed.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Prem » 12 Sep 2008 00:02

ramana wrote:Most likely the HFC will send the agreement without recommendation so Berman can keep his NPA credentials intact.
Paul there are all sorts of coalition thats against the agreement. I dont want to demean it as a deal.

Dont forget Rep Burton is inspired by a different vision- Khalistanis. Sen. Boxer has evanjihadi interests. What was done is give them all a conveinent pinata to vent their anger on the US govt. The reason is they cant do anything against the US govt so they can transfer their anger at the pinata.

I still dont understand the Ireland's beef against India? What do the Dublin papers say? how come non of the chatterati in India are not looking into it?


The only economic reason can be competition in software business plus deisre to go against whatever British purpose.
If the deal is strategic, there will be hell of lot service business going to India' way thus putting dent in Irish $ basket.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 196
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Luxtor » 12 Sep 2008 00:07

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush ... 472728.cms

Here's an article in Times of India. The item that I bolded stands out to me..... Does that item mean India has agreed to stop future nuclear weapons production?

Bush invites PM for US visit on Sept 25

WASHINGTON: President Bush approved, signed, and rushed the updated US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement with the required documentation to Congress on Wednesday evening, showing the kind of urgency and speed that makes it almost certain that the deal will have final legislative clearance in the next fortnight.

Soon after, the White House officially announced Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington on September 25, setting the stage for a grand finale to the deal first conceived in early 2005 and initiated on July 18 that year.

''The President...looks forward to welcoming Prime Minister Singh to the White House on September 25, 2008, to strengthen the Strategic Partnership and build upon our progress in other areas of cooperation, such as agriculture, education, trade, and defence,'' the White House said in a statement.

The twin moves followed hectic activity on Wednesday in course of which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made her second trip to the Hill in two days to meet Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, to follow up her meetings on the House side on Tuesday.

The administration needs the cooperation of the Democrats, who control both the House and Senate, to schedule a vote to approve the nuclear deal, by-passing the 30-day resting period.

Rice also squeezed in a meeting in between with India’s visiting Defense Minister A.K.Antony, who said the administration appeared confident of getting a final approval for the nuclear deal, although his visit was primarily focused on security issues.

The administration appears to have unstinting support for the deal from lawmakers from its own Republican wing, and all exertions are now aimed at getting a few dissenting Democrats not to put a block on it, hence, Rice’s meetings with Senate leader Reid and House leader Nancy Pelosi, the two law-making principals whose word will be hard to defy.

The administration is banking on the support from Reid and Pelosi, along with backing for the deal from other Democratic heavyweights such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, to overcome any resistance from maverick law-makers with a hard-line non-proliferation agenda.

In a statement on Thursday morning following the transmission of the agreement to Congress, Bush offered a non-proliferation assurance to doubters, saying ''this historic achievement will bolster international non-proliferation efforts, provide economic and business opportunities in both countries, and help India address its growing energy needs in an environmentally responsible manner.''
''The President looks forward to working with Congress to ensure passage on the agreement this year,'' the White House said in the September 11 statement, suggesting that in the off-chance the vote is not scheduled in this session ending September 26, it could be deferred to a lame-duck session in December.

Earlier, in a ''Presidential Determination'' the White House sent to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Energy on Wednesday evening seeking execution of the agreement, Bush said he has ''determined that the performance of the Agreement will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defence and security'' of U.S and India.

The seven determinations Bush outlined in waiving the decades long nuclear sanctions against India, are

* India has provided the United States and the IAEA with a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs, and has filed a declaration regarding its civil facilities and materials with the IAEA;

* India and the IAEA have concluded all legal steps for the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity
* India and the IAEA are making substantial progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA principles, practices, and policies that would apply to India's civil nuclear program;

* India is working actively with the U.S for the early conclusion of a multilateral treaty on the cessation of the production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

* India is working with and supporting U.S and international efforts to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment or reprocessing plants;. India is taking the necessary steps to secure nuclear and other sensitive materials and technology, including through (A) the enactment and effective enforcement of comprehensive export control legislation and regulations; (B) harmonization of its export control laws, regulations, policies, and practices with the guidelines and practices of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG); and (C) adherence to the MTCR and the NSG in accordance with the procedures of those regimes for unilateral adherence; and

* The NSG has decided by consensus to permit supply to India of nuclear items covered by the guidelines of the NSG.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 12 Sep 2008 00:09

This interview is a gem.
I love these one in particular because it is important in understanding the Indian nuclear status/framework.
sunilUpa wrote:Pranab Da interview with Raj Chengappa
    Will start nuclear trade immediately: Pranab Mukherjee

    September 11, 2008

    .... .... ... ... .. . . Q. The BJP's point is that we have surrendered the right to test and our strategic options are being capped?
    A. They owe the nation an explanation as to why did they say after 1998 that India does not need to test any more. Why? What prompted them to declare unilateral moratorium? My point is that if we had the right to test in 1998 then we still have it now. At that point of time by exercising our right we had to face some consequences. It may happen exactly the same way. There is not an alteration of the situation at all. What remained earlier remains now. Nothing has been conceded. Therefore these are absolutely ridiculous and baseless criticisms. .... .... ... ... .. . .


On this one Pranab fell flat on his nose:
Q. The Left wants a special session of the Parliament and accuses the government of lying but after the leak of the Howard Berman letter are you worried about it?
A. Who is lying? If I knew something and I didn't tell the truth then I am lying. But in this case, how can I be privy to what transpired between the executive and the legislative wing of the US government? We are only concerned with what we are party to like the 123 agreement and others. What is the basis of this accusation?
Of course Pranab da, what else is the definition of lying?

As Foreign Minister Pranab should be very clearly communicating where it needs to be. If we do not stockpile will we start to make it when in fact the time is to use it?
Q. What about our weapons programme? Would there be any changes?
A. The nuclear doctrine has been enumerated by the previous Vajpayee government and we are strictly adhering to it. We are not enhancing or reducing our programme. We must have a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, so that nobody will attack us with nuclear weapons because they know our retaliation would be unacceptable to them. We are not interested in stockpiling of nuclear weapons or a nuclear arms race. Our overall commitment to nuclear proliferation is there.


Some insight.
Q Were personally disappointed that you couldn't build a consensus on the nuclear deal and prevented the Left from walking away?
A: It was difficult. Their differences were ideological. They told us we can have the deal with France and Russia but not with the US. What could we do? I can't change their ideological perceptions. And with Russia and France it was not possible without NSG clearance.


Q. Did you ever feel that the deal will not materialise and the waiver may not happen?
A. That fear and suspense was there all along, but we were confident when these people were expressing their concern that India will not contribute to non-proliferation. Then I thought that I must re-assert that this is my commitment. I made the September 6 statement to say that you don't hold the sole agency of non-proliferation. India is talking of non-proliferation all along. Even after 1998 we have not forgotten our commitment to non-proliferation. In the last UNGA session we moved a resolution. Recently we celebrated the 20th anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi's speech in the disarmament to reiterate our commitment to non proliferation.


Q. Has the nuclear deal boosted our chances of becoming the permanent member of the UN Security Council?
A. India always had a certain stature. All along India had stature but with our growing economy, technological competence besides prestige we have muscles. No doubt this enhanced stature will help, but India has its own claim to be the permanent member of the Security Council.


This is fantastic. When there are other hunters with loaded guns ready to do your job, why bother spending your own effort?
Q. Now even Pakistan wants a deal like this. What do you have to say?
A. Why should we object if others get it. It is for the international community to decide.


Q. Asif Zardari has taken over as the president. Will that help in creating better ties with Pakistan?
A. I would like to watch. Action is much more important than words. After the new government took over, I went to Pakistan. I had discussions with them and there was no dearth of words. After that, the ceasefire has been violated, infiltration has increased, the Kabul blasts occurred and the rhetoric has returned. We have sent them some concrete proposals on cross-border trade to start from October 1. If we get a positive response we will be too happy. Work is more important than words.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 12 Sep 2008 00:43

Rahul M wrote:
Suraj wrote:NRao: we are referring to the following:
NRao wrote:Forgot to add, RU during the Georgian fiasco, explicitly stated that RU will support the US on the nuclear front.

And, of course, FR has stated that they feel that India is not ready - mature enough - to join the club.

thanks suraj.
NRao, this is the one I'm talking about.



Granted this is blog, but here is a recent one:

July, 2008 :: France and the nuclear deal

France is of course eagerly awaiting its signature, so that it can try to sell to India its nuclear technology and maybe one or two nuclear plants. But what France also does not say, is that it silently thinks that India, contrary to the five declared nuclear powers, is not a mature and wise enough nation to handle military nuclear technology and that it agrees with the US that India’s military nuclear programme be capped so as to profit only civil nuclear energy.


I am hunting for the what I recall to be a statement by their Prez/FM. That is also fairly recent - June/July time frame. (Without the good old print button it is very challenging to hunt through 47 or so pages. IIRC it was in the previous bundle of posts, which is in the trash can archive.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 12 Sep 2008 00:47

I never thought US President could be as low in basic understadning of a situtation and blind to facts. Following statements of USA Ex-President are gems of intellectual dishonesty. As always just my personal thought.

Sanatanan wrote:President Jimmy Carter's Opinion article in International Herald Tribune. Quoting in Full.
    NUCLEAR ARMS
    India nuclear deal puts world at risk
    By Jimmy Carter
    Published: September 11, 2008

    ... .. . . .This has sent mixed signals to North Korea, Iran and other nations with the technical knowledge to create nuclear weapons. The currently proposed agreement with India compounds this challenge and further undermines the global pact for restraint represented by the nuclear nonproliferation regime. If India's unique demands are acceptable, why should other technologically advanced NPT signatories, such as Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Japan - to say nothing of less responsible nations - continue to restrain themselves?

    ... .. . . . I have no doubt that India's political leaders are just as responsible in handling their country's arsenal as leaders of the five original nuclear powers. But there is a significant difference: the original five have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and strive to stop producing fissile material for weapons. :rotfl: {Arun_S: US ex-president Carter cuts a sorry figure if he only knows of this difference :twisted: }

    ... .. . . .India's leaders' accepting the NPT and joining other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would greatly strengthen the global effort to control proliferation. Instead, India insists on unrestricted access to international assistance in producing fissile material :rotfl: for as many as 50 weapons a year, perhaps doubling what is believed to be India's current capacity. Meanwhile, other major nuclear powers, including the United States, Russia, France and Britain, are moving to limit their production.

    Former President :twisted: Jimmy Carter is founder of The Carter Center, which works to advance world peace and health.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 12 Sep 2008 00:50

So they have frozen the nuke weapon programs to the level that NDA had come up with. And they are in that sense seat warmers and managers and will not or cannot make any decsions otherwise.
Jaswant Singh was loqacious about how the numbers will change based on the security threat and India cannot articluate a fixity for its deterrent. Looks like UPA govt has decided to freeze them at the level that was at the time of NDA departure.

What was all that hogwash of MMS saying Minimum Nuclear Deterrent to Credible minimum deterrent.The commentators were wondering wht that ment. Now we know. Pranab Mukherjee has spelled out what this means- UPA has frozen the numbers at the NDA level and Bush has ceritified to the US Congress as can be seen from the TOI report.

Next step is to put all the reactors in the cvilian section!

So that means Pranab Mukherjee in a news paper interview and not in the Lok Sabha is stating that the cap has been accepted by the UPA govt and the forum was quibbling over non sequitors led by amit.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6953
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Anujan » 12 Sep 2008 00:57

Arun_S wrote:... .. . . . I have no doubt that India's political leaders are just as responsible in handling their country's arsenal as leaders of the five original nuclear powers. But there is a significant difference: the original five have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and strive to stop producing fissile material for weapons. :rotfl: {Arun_S: US ex-president Carter cuts a sorry figure if he only knows of this difference :twisted: }


After conducting 300 tests, we should have a babu in jharkhand to release a carbon copy of a non binding gubmint circular on a semi transparent smelly paper that India is contemplating of resolving to strive to develop a mechanism that will work towards innovating a scheme for restraining the accelerating production of certain fissile isotopes.

Moral high ground reclaimed ! zimble onlee ! I can already see Jimmy carter issuing kudos to the said babu.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ShibaPJ » 12 Sep 2008 01:19

Q. What about our weapons programme? Would there be any changes?
A. The nuclear doctrine has been enumerated by the previous Vajpayee government and we are strictly adhering to it. We are not enhancing or reducing our programme. We must have a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, so that nobody will attack us with nuclear weapons because they know our retaliation would be unacceptable to them. We are not interested in stockpiling of nuclear weapons or a nuclear arms race. Our overall commitment to nuclear proliferation is there.

Does the first bolded part mean we are not in a sprint to develop new/ more sophisticated weapons? Then how does India test/ proof baby boomer payload? The 2nd part is understandable that India does not need to stockpile like US/ Rus do (thousands of ready to use warheads). However, if India has 400~500 working warheads and enough additional WgPU to ramp up when the need arises, would it not suffice? Gurus, can you please clarify?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 12 Sep 2008 01:24

He is clearly stating that it has been capped at levels that the NDA set and we know NDA was just building up when it was not returned to power.

This will be the next set of controversies in India. Looks like left was more realistic than the UPA in the numbers.

raj_singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 05 Sep 2008 19:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 12 Sep 2008 01:28

Ramana

So they have frozen the nuke weapon programs to the level that NDA had come up with. And they are in that sense seat warmers and managers and will not or cannot make any decsions otherwise.
Jaswant Singh was loqacious about how the numbers will change based on the security threat and India cannot articluate a fixity for its deterrent. Looks like UPA govt has decided to freeze them at the level that was at the time of NDA departure.

What was all that hogwash of MMS saying Minimum Nuclear Deterrent to Credible minimum deterrent.The commentators were wondering wht that ment. Now we know. Pranab Mukherjee has spelled out what this means- UPA has frozen the numbers at the NDA level and Bush has ceritified to the US Congress as can be seen from the TOI report.

Next step is to put all the reactors in the cvilian section!

So that means Pranab Mukherjee in a news paper interview and not in the Lok Sabha is stating that the cap has been accepted by the UPA govt and the forum was quibbling over non sequitors led by amit.


In the current (geo) political state, is it really being expected from GOI to come out and declare publicily that India will make more nuclear bombs?

GOI will continue doing whatever needs to be done. An interview by a minister here or there may not make much difference.

As it is, GOI is not going to give the separation list of all the reactors till 2014.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ShibaPJ » 12 Sep 2008 01:34

Ramana,
So in effect, you are saying that Indian n-posture is capped in both quantity and quality. If true, this is insidious. There were earlier reports that the LIF-related developments also were being dismantled. Then this amounts to effective 'C' by UPA. I hope, I am wrong. :evil:

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ShibaPJ » 12 Sep 2008 01:37

raj_singh wrote:..In the current (geo) political state, is it really being expected from GOI to come out and declare publicily that India will make more nuclear bombs?

GOI will continue doing whatever needs to be done. An interview by a minister here or there may not make much difference.

As it is, GOI is not going to give the separation list of all the reactors till 2014.

This is fine that India builds up WgPu. But capping the R&D, if true from PM's statement, is altogether different.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby sivab » 12 Sep 2008 01:43

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/12/stories ... 090100.htm
U.S. delivers 123 blow to India
Siddharth Varadarajan

Fuel assurances not binding: Bush

New Delhi: The United States has diluted the fuel supply assurances contained in the ‘123 agreement’ on nuclear cooperation with India, with President George W. Bush formally declaring, in his September 10 message to Congress, that all American commitments to the Indian side in this regard were not “legally binding.”

As part of the process of completing the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative, Mr. Bush forwarded the text of the 123 agreement to Congress with a covering note and a separate memorandum containing seven ‘determinations’ that India had conformed to the non-proliferation commitments it had made in July 2005.

But the covering note had a sting in its tail on the question of fuel assurances, which India sees as an essential component of the interlocking set of commitments and obligations both sides have undertaken since 2005.

“In Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India,” President Bush’s statement says. “[The] Agreement does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other U.S. agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement.”

This formulation, say Indian officials, is completely at odds with the understanding India has that the assurances are indeed meant to be legally binding. “After all, India has committed itself to binding commitments like safeguards,” said an official. Officials also reject the notion that the Indian 123 could be treated “like other U.S. agreements of its type” since fuel supply assurances figure only in the Indian agreement. And the need for legally binding fuel assurances arose because India — which is not obliged to place all its reactors under safeguards or withdraw them once placed, unlike other countries with which the U.S. has signed agreements — was voluntarily accepting IAEA supervision.

Since the signing of the 123 agreement is meant to be the highlight of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s forthcoming visit to the U.S., Indian officials are now scrambling to find ways of undoing the damage caused by the Bush message.

The administration’s formulations, say sources, ensures that even if the 123 agreement is rapidly approved, its provisions will remain a virtual dead letter given their negative implication for the commercial viability of any reactor imports from the United States.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 12 Sep 2008 01:44

raj_singh It s not what I am saying. Please go read the interview slowly.

and you said

GOI will continue doing whatever needs to be done. An interview by a minister here or there may not make much difference.


Pray with what? The amount/number is fixed; the future tests are at great penalty and if the Cabinet minister's word is not enough what is? I guess the thinking is this is all tamasha or natak? So its at a lesser status. No wonder PRC thought it could get more from them.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby sivab » 12 Sep 2008 01:45

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/12/stories ... 891200.htm

India believes fuel assurances are binding
Siddharth Varadarajan

Bush message makes it clear that the U.S. is not legally bound even after the 123 agreement is approved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sign of U.S. refusal came in answers provided by the State Department

Answers were provided to Congress on January 16 but made public only last week

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Delhi: Finalised in July 2007 after several months of difficult negotiations, the 123 agreement on civil nuclear cooperation with the United States was meant to pave the way for the actual import of nuclear material by India as broadly allowed by the Hyde Act of December 2006 but without any of its encumbrances.

If the Hyde Act embodied restrictions that India found offensive, Indian negotiators sought to create a legal framework for nuclear trade with the U.S. that would ensure two critical objectives: lifetime supply of fuel for any reactors India might import or place under safeguards, and the right to reprocess the spent fuel produced by U.S.-origin facilities.

Early in the negotiations, the Indian side pressed for the legal recognition of India’s rights rather than the mere assertion of a political commitment. And they were satisfied when the U.S. finally agreed to the incorporation of the fuel supply assurances contained in the March 2006 U.S.-India statement. And to up-front reprocessing consent rights with the proviso that these rights would take effect upon the establishment of a new, safeguarded reprocessing facility in India and the conclusion of an agreement on arrangements and procedures within a year of India making a formal request.

So confident was the United Progressive Alliance government of the ‘legal’ sanctity of these fuel assurances that, in its note of September 17, 2007, it told its erstwhile Left partners that “once the 123 agreement is approved by the U.S. Congress, it will become U.S. law, which as the U.S. Constitution expressly provides, ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ The U.S. commitment for assured fuel supplies for the lifetime of India’s safeguarded reactors should, therefore, be under no doubt.”

The government also argued that Article 5.6(a) of the 123 agreement was tantamount to “a U.S. commitment to amend its domestic laws should any law stand in the way of the U.S. fulfilling these fuel supply obligations.”

In its note of September 24, 2007 to the Left parties, the government amplified on this theme: “By its very nature as an enabling legislation, the Hyde Act is not required to include fuel supply assurances... The 123 agreement, which was negotiated thereafter, included them in toto. This validates our contention that it is the 123 agreement and not the Hyde Act that should be treated as governing the rights and obligations of the parties.”

The first clear sign of the U.S. refusing to treat the fuel assurances as legally binding came in the answers provided by the State Department to queries of the House Foreign Relations Committee (HFRC) queries about the 123 agreement. These answers were provided to Congress on January 16 but made public only last week.

In question 14, the HFRC asks: “Which of the commitments that the United States made in Article 5 are of a binding legal character? Does the Indian government agree?” The State Department’s reply was: “The question quotes paragraph 6 of Article 5, which contains certain fuel supply assurances that were repeated verbatim from the March 2006 separation plan. These are important Presidential commitments that the U.S. intends to uphold, consistent with U.S. law.”

Though Indian officials saw this answer as an attempt by the U.S. to duck what they saw as legal commitments, they assumed the administration would treat these commitments as legally binding once they had become part of the U.S. law following the passage of the 123 agreement in Congress.

But President Bush’s message clearly states that the U.S. does not believe the fuel supply assurances would become legally binding even after the 123 is approved.

Other answers in the State Department document sought to limit the kind of disruptions which would be covered by the fuel supply assurances to those which occurred due to circumstances beyond India’s control. This ruled out a nuclear detonation, it said, something India contests. But with the latest U.S. interpretation, it is clear that even in the event of disruptions caused by “market disruptions in the global supply of fuel; and the potential failure of an American company to fulfill any fuel supply contracts it may have signed with India” — two scenarios mentioned in the answer to question 15 — India cannot count on legally binding fuel supply assurances.

When the State Department’s answers were made public last week, senior officials warned the government of the urgent need to contest its most damaging interpretations. However, India held its counsel because it did not wish to do anything to compromise the campaign for the NSG waiver, which the U.S. was leading. But with the White House now literally rushing to secure legislative approval for the agreement before September 26, the Indian side is discovering that the time for it to press its case might already have run out.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6803
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby CRamS » 12 Sep 2008 01:48

Arun_S wrote:
Q. Now even Pakistan wants a deal like this. What do you have to say?
A. Why should we object if others get it. It is for the international community to decide.


[/quote]

What a cop out. No self confidence to say India is not a terrorist nuke-proliferating rouge like TSP.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4461
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby putnanja » 12 Sep 2008 01:58

ShibaPJ wrote:
Q. What about our weapons programme? Would there be any changes?
A. The nuclear doctrine has been enumerated by the previous Vajpayee government and we are strictly adhering to it. We are not enhancing or reducing our programme. We must have a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, so that nobody will attack us with nuclear weapons because they know our retaliation would be unacceptable to them. We are not interested in stockpiling of nuclear weapons or a nuclear arms race. Our overall commitment to nuclear proliferation is there.

Does the first bolded part mean we are not in a sprint to develop new/ more sophisticated weapons? Then how does India test/ proof baby boomer payload? The 2nd part is understandable that India does not need to stockpile like US/ Rus do (thousands of ready to use warheads). However, if India has 400~500 working warheads and enough additional WgPU to ramp up when the need arises, would it not suffice? Gurus, can you please clarify?


I read Pranab's statement to mean that whatever program was going on when NDA left office is still continuing. It is a running program and will continue till things in neighbourhood demands a rethink. I remember an article long time back during the nuclear deal debate where BJP wanted to know if the strategic program they had left behind was continuing or not and the NSA Narayanan had visited Vajpayee's house and met him, Brajesh, LKA and/or Jaswant singh and updated them about the status of the program.

raj_singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 05 Sep 2008 19:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 12 Sep 2008 02:07

Ramana

It s not what I am saying. Please go read the interview slowly.


I took your suggestion on board, and have re read the interview.

I am aware that it is not you who is saying that. I responded to your own interpretation of that interview.

Pray with what? The amount/number is fixed; the future tests are at great penalty and if the Cabinet minister's word is not enough what is? I guess the thinking is this is all tamasha or natak?


It is not about tamasha or natak but it is being practical. In this already charged up atmosphere, it would be very difficult for any GOI representative to show machoism and say, we are going ahead with making more nuclear bombs, when the deal is yet to be ratified by US congress. Add to it noise coming out from Australia about not wanting to sell uranium and then, NPT lobby is still alive and kicking.

No wonder PRC thought it could get more from them.


If the reference is to NSG then it is India who is laughing. And it is China who is being laughed at. My understanding is the Indian media has really lambasted China and going by Vardarajan's article, even some of the European diplomats have not been fan of China's actions.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 12 Sep 2008 02:12

ramana wrote:He is clearly stating that it has been capped at levels that the NDA set and we know NDA was just building up when it was not returned to power.

This will be the next set of controversies in India. Looks like left was more realistic than the UPA in the numbers.


So all this means is that UPA will be tossed out of power, and the following govt would overturn 123, a la Dhabhol Power Project.

The same thing that happened to Dhabhol would happen to 123.

We're the buyer -- we have the opportunity to say no. The seller can't force their sales down our throats -- all they can do at most is withdraw 123 and the waiver.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 12 Sep 2008 02:34

We are not enhancing or reducing our programme.


Doesn't this imply that the rate of production of nuclear weapons remains constant?

raj_singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 05 Sep 2008 19:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 12 Sep 2008 02:36

Gerard

Doesn't this imply that the rate of production of nuclear weapons remains constant?


Sure, it does.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ShibaPJ » 12 Sep 2008 02:38

RaviBg,
I do remember that newspiece on NSA meeting BJP top brass. However, PM's statements could be interpreted differently. Ramana's interpretation is R&D/ quality is capped at NDA level, and that is worrying. The next Indian test should be to proof the latest TN baby as well to complete the triad. AFAIK, the 98 patakha were not workable ATV TN designs.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Katare » 12 Sep 2008 02:44

ramana wrote:He is clearly stating that it has been capped at levels that the NDA set and we know NDA was just building up when it was not returned to power.

This will be the next set of controversies in India. Looks like left was more realistic than the UPA in the numbers.


Ramana,

I think you are reading it wrong. He is saying that the doctrine is frozen, the scope of it has neither enhanced nor reduced by UPA. They are implementing with the same commitment as envisioned and written in our national nuclear doctrine drafted by NDA govt.

On FMCT, it has been India's goal to support this initiative and conclude it at the earliest although on our own conditions. We should be committed to negotiating this treaty to ensure that the world doesn't pass another nuclear treaty that puts us at a position of disadvantage again.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 12 Sep 2008 03:11

Seems like UPA govt will fall anyway during the elections, not least of all because of this 123 deal.

So the election of an opposite govt (most likely NDA) will ensure that any weird/corrupt concessions made by UPA during negotiations will be undone.
Again, if push comes to shove, the worst USA can do is revoke the waiver.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 12 Sep 2008 03:19

The waiver cant be revoked at NSG. Recall it has to be by consensus. And after NATO expansion this will be difficult.Yes they can invoke all their Hyde act and what not. But they wont have the force of intl cooperation behind them if they do that.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby John Snow » 12 Sep 2008 03:22

NSA meetings are always post facto, now they will surely meet over chai paani and chaand biskoot, samosa

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 12 Sep 2008 03:26

Pranab's statement to the NSG specified a "verifiable" FMCT. The US and China are resisting this formulation.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest