India nuclear news and discussion

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 14 Sep 2008 09:40

Who says that India only has pure fission or boosted fission devices? The NPAs?

People who have never even seen a nuke in real life far less design one? While the people like Anil Kakodar who designed same and assembled devices with their own hands in the desert are doubted?

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanatanan » 14 Sep 2008 11:11

This article by Dr P.K Iyengar in MJ Akbar's Magazine "Covert" seems to be undated (at least at the link where I found it). I am quoting it in full since I feel it has not been posted in these threads so far.


Ten misconceptions about the Nuclear Deal
By P. K. Iyengar, Chairman (Retd.),
Atomic Energy Commission

In spite of the fact that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest, many in the country, and in Parliament, support it because of misconceptions about the deal, which need to be clarified.

1. The nuclear deal is an agreement between India and the US for the US government to supply nuclear fuel and reactors to India.

Contrary to common perception, the nuclear deal or the 123 Agreement is not a commitment on the part of the US government to provide us with uranium or nuclear reactors. Presently American law prohibits nuclear cooperation with India because we have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). All the nuclear deal does is to grant a 'waiver' from that law, so that American companies can now pursue nuclear trade with India. However, if India conducts a test at any time, the waiver is revoked.

2. Imported uranium and nuclear reactors will be cheap and cost-effective.

Even if the nuclear deal is made operational, the actual sale of uranium and nuclear reactors will be governed by market forces – there are no guarantees of cheap or competitive nuclear power. To the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it will be expensive. The cost of uranium in the international market has gone up four-fold in the last few years, and will rise further with further demand. The same is true of the cost of steel and other materials used in a reactor. Manpower costs are much higher in the West. The example of the Dhabol power plant has already shown us that importing power plants from the West is not necessarily a viable option. We would do well to learn from that experience.

3 The nuclear deal will safeguard our energy security.

It is true that nuclear energy is green energy, and therefore essential for our long-term energy security. But this does not translate into the nuclear deal will ensure our energy security. Power from the nuclear reactors that we buy will definitely be more expensive than indigenous nuclear power. Further, to keep the reactors running, we will always be dependent on imported uranium, which is controlled by a cartel – the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Therefore, the nuclear deal, by making us dependent on the cartel, will only compromise our energy security. Only our indigenous nuclear power programme can truly ensure our energy security. And in any case, for the next few decades, nuclear power will not exceed 6% of our total electricity production.

4. Importing nuclear plants is a quick-fix solution to the present power crisis.

Nuclear technology is sensitive. Even if the nuclear deal goes through, it will take time to buy and setup new reactors. We have examples of the French reactors in China, and the Russian reactors in Kudankulam, India. It will actually take longer to setup foreign reactors compared to indigenous ones. Just the negotiations and legal formalities could take years. It will be at least eight years before we see the first power. So importing reactors is certainly no quick solution. For the short term, we will still have to rely on coal and hydroelectricity.

5. The nuclear deal does not stop India from further nuclear testing, and therefore does not compromise our national security.

It is very clearly stated in the 123 Agreement it will be subject to national laws, and the Hyde Act is a law of the US. Therefore, the 123 Agreement is certainly circumscribed by the Hyde Act, which very clearly states that if India tests a nuclear device, all further nuclear trade is to stop, and the nuclear materials that have already been sold to us have to be returned. No future Indian government would dare to jeopardise such a huge investment in nuclear power, by testing. So, for all practical purposes the nuclear deal caps our strategic programme – which is precisely what the Americans intend.

6. We can pass a national law to counteract the Hyde Act, and this will protect our strategic programme.

Just as the Hyde Act is not binding on us, our laws are not binding on the US. We can certainly amend our Atomic Energy Act to enable participation of the private sector in nuclear power. But if we pass a law saying that we will retain the right to test, it will have no influence on the actions of the US. If and when we test, they can simply quote the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act, and pull out all their nuclear materials, leaving us devastated. The only option here is to renegotiate the 123 Agreement and have the clause inserted there. However, the Americans are unlikely to agree to this, since it goes against their non-proliferation policy.

7. The nuclear deal and the safeguards agreement give India the status of a nuclear power.

While the 18 July 2005 Joint Statement did indeed talk about India being treated as an equal by the US, neither the 123 Agreement nor the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, have borne out those optimistic statements. In fact, the IAEA safeguards agreement that has been negotiated is closely based on the model agreement that IAEA has for non-nuclear weapon states. The safeguards agreements that the nuclear weapon countries have signed with the IAEA require them to put very few reactors under safeguards, and allow them to take reactors out of safeguards. India, however, will have to place most of its reactors under safeguards for perpetuity. Therefore we are certainly not being treated as a nuclear weapons country.

8. Without the nuclear deal, we cannot get adequate uranium for our domestic nuclear programme.

The Department of Atomic Energy has always maintained that we have enough indigenous uranium for 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We are not yet close to that number. The present mismatch in uranium availability for operating reactors is a consequence of poor planning, and inadequate prospecting and mining. There is talk of importing 40,000 MW of nuclear power, which will cost not less than $100 billion or Rs. 4 lakh crores. If even 10% of this money were spent on uranium mining in existing mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya, on searching for new uranium deposits, and negotiating with non-NSG countries, there will be enough uranium for a robust indigenous nuclear power programme, until such time as thorium reactors takes over.

9. The safeguards agreement with the IAEA guarantees fuel supplies even if India conducts a nuclear test.

The safeguards agreement only notes, in the preamble, that India's concurrence to the safeguards is linked to getting fuel supplies. However, the IAEA has no role in this matter, and certainly, no such commitment is given in the safeguards agreement. It also notes that India may take 'corrective measures' in the event of a disruption of foreign fuel supplies. It does not specify what these measures will be, it does not provide for any role for the IAEA in this, and it does not bestow legitimacy on any such measures that India may take. It may well be that any such measures that we suggest, such as importing fuel from another country, will be disallowed by the nuclear cartel (the NSG). The only tangible corrective measure is for India to explore and mine more uranium, and to enhance the enrichment capability to provide fuel for those reactors. The latter is subject to uncertainty.

10. The nuclear deal has no impact on our foreign policy.

The Hyde Act states clearly that it is the policy of the US to secure India's cooperation on a number of issues involving Iran, including its capability to reprocess nuclear fuel (in spite of the fact that Iran, as an NPT signatory, has the right to enrich uranium for use in light-water reactors). This has nothing to do with the nuclear deal, and can only be related to influencing our foreign policy. Recent statements by Gary Ackerman, Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, regarding Indo-Iran gas pipeline, only add fuel to such suspicions.

It can therefore be seen, that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest. It presents the very serious danger of capping our strategic programme. That alone is reason enough not to go forward with the deal. Additionally, it does not guarantee the energy security that we are seeking, and, in fact, may only end up making us as vulnerable to the nuclear cartel, as we are today to the oil cartel.

It is easy to see why the US wants this deal so badly. At virtually no cost, since there is no commitment towards fuel supplies, they can cap our strategic programme, bring us into the NPT net, through the back door, as a non-nuclear power, keep a close eye on our nuclear activities, including R&D, through intrusive IAEA inspections, and subjugate us to the wishes of the nuclear cartel. If there were no cartel, we could have easily extended the Kudankulam agreement for more reactors, and avoided the present situation. If these are not reasons enough not to go ahead with the nuclear deal, then there are no reasons that reason can find.

- Dr. P. K. Iyengar
Chairman (Retd.), Atomic Energy Commission



Added later:
I just found that it was published on Jul 22, 2008 in The Hindu Business Line. My apologies if this article was posted earlier.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby JE Menon » 14 Sep 2008 12:20

>>Looks like my salami slicing theory is taking solid shape.

>>What say you, Ramana, Alok N, JEM and others ?

Hey, Valkan welcome back dude... Where TF have you been all this while?

Of course the salami slicing is more than taking shape. I'd say its the thread end of the salami we're at. Problem is that not all agree with that approach. Its all or nothing that seems to be preferred. Its a common problem, but fortunately in this context both irrelevant to the outcome and unable to impact meaningfully upon it.

All in all, we're doing better today than say a month ago. We'll be still better off a few weeks hence, after the US Congress is through with their play acting.

Fears of capping, etc., by outside powers are nonsense (IMHO of course). In fact, and I say this with tongue only partially in cheek, one wishes the US/NSG tried that tack... It would make us work doubly hard to ensure that it did not happen. What is more likely is self-capping... out of our own over emphasis on vasudeva kudumbakam.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanatanan » 14 Sep 2008 12:43

Even France says it will not make fuel supply legaly binding.

From Hindustan Times:

NSG waiver allows 'full cooperation', says India

Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, September 13, 2008
First Published: 15:18 IST(13/9/2008)
Last Updated: 19:54 IST(13/9/2008)
Hindustan Times

Brushing aside reports suggesting that the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will not have "full civil nuclear cooperation" with India, South Block has stressed it will go by official documents rather than by contents of "so-called secret pacts".

"As far as we are concerned India has got the waiver it had asked for from the NSG that allows full civil nuclear cooperation with all its member countries," sources in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) told IANS on Saturday.

A story carried by the Washington Post on Friday suggested that NSG members have had a secret pact not to cooperate with India on sensitive technologies.

"The agreement undercuts one of the Indian government's key rationales for seeking a civilian nuclear deal with the United States that it would open the door for 'full civil nuclear cooperation' with the rest of the world," the daily suggested.

But France, a key player in the field of civil nuclear energy and member of the NSG, has made it clear that it will offer its "first generation" EPR nuclear reactor to India and also hold talks with it on cooperation in re-processing technology.

The Indian establishment sees much of the negative campaign as part of the frustration of the US based non-proliferation lobbies.

Officially, India has not reacted to the report. But sources in the ministry, who asked for anonymity as they were not authorised to speak to the media, said that New Delhi will go by what is in the official NSG document rather than in the secret pacts between members of the group.

"These lobbies have been campaigning against an Indian waiver and feel totally frustrated and disappointed for not being able to stop it," sources said.

"I guess they will perhaps die down once the Indo-US nuclear deal is completed," they added.

The nuclear deal is now before the US Congress for its final approval. There are indications that it may come through and be ready for signature when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush meet in Washington Sep 25.

On Friday, India officially reacted to news report that highlighted portions of President Bush's letter to Congressman Howard Berman in which he said the fuel supply assurance to India was not "legally binding" on the US government.

MEA spokesman Navtej Sarna had maintained that India will go by the 123 agreement between India and the US and once it came into force it will become a legal document.

But in private, Indian and foreign diplomats argue that most agreements, especially on sensitive areas like civil nuclear energy, were enforceable through political understanding rather than by legally binding documents.

French officials also argue that while provisions for fuel supply were part of the proposed pact it plans to finalise with India on civil nuclear energy cooperation, it will not make it legally binding.

They pointed out that countries which set up or sell nuclear reactors also provide for nuclear fuel to run them. But since the fuel is not something that is easily available, no country will go into an assurance that is legally binding.

"More often that not such guarantees work on the basis of the political equations between countries, rather than through legal mechanisms," French officials told IANS.


It all portends a repeat of the Tarapur 1&2 experience.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 14 Sep 2008 12:52

Well, Russia has largely kept up its supplies to India. So we can likewise also look at them.

I understand that the French would be more vulnerable to pressure from the Americans, however the Russians are the least likely to be vulnerable.

I don't see there's any strategic necessity for testing anytime soon, anyway.

clay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 19 Mar 2008 15:46
Location: Kuwait
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby clay » 14 Sep 2008 13:34

I don't know why some of us have such a low level of self confidence in ourselves? It's like saying "Humein apne mardangi pe shak hain".

By and large I would say we have got a good deal but its dependent on how we play our cards now onwards.

The IAEA agreement clearly says there will be a separation of our civilian and military nuclear reactors and ONLY the former will be placed under the IAEA safeguards. Besides, it will be us that decides which reactors are placed under safeguards. As far us our status as a NWS or non NWS is concerned it does not make a difference. Our nuclear deterent is here to stay and nobody is taking that away from us. As far as I know only those states that exploded a nuclear device before 1968 are recognised as NWS.

The NSG waiver is beneficial because it will be bringing us out of over three decades of isolation from the nuclear mainstream. We can finally have access to fuel and technology. There is no doubt that some sensitive technologies will be restricted but is there a better option with our reactors running @ 40-50%? As far as the secret agreement (among NSG members) about not selling us nuclear technology is nothing but background noise. Please don't forget the fact that we control the purse strings. See the racket the opposition in Austrailia is making and its only early days yet. This is where the french and russkies will come thru.

And as far as the 123 Agreement is concerned the amirkhans are only shooting themselves in the foot. No assured fuel supplies means no business for them. All the secret letters/comments/anonymous media leaks etc. is meant for their domestic consumption to satisfy the naysayers. The various pressure groups among the US establishment are using the media to further their agenda. GB stating that there is no legal binding means there are no liabilities on the american companies (This is what I presume knowing how paranoid they are about the word "liability") But our govt. needs to make a noise about this just so we are not taken for granted.

Ofcourse there is some ambiguity about how the above agreements/waivers are interpreted. This can be used to our advantage if we remain strong, play it smart and stay focussed and committed to our nuclear doctrine.

And last but certainly not the least is all this has been achieved without signing the NPT or CTBT. I am convinced our sovereignity has been safeguarded.

Now coming to the part of testing, this is where our govenment will have to prove its worth. We will have to test that is for sure but we need to choose the correct time for this . We have reserved the right to test and the others have the right to react. Major fallout from this can be prevented depending on how political/strategic equations on the world stage stand at that point in time.

JMT and apologies if any sentiments are hurt.

Regds, Clay

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanatanan » 14 Sep 2008 16:42

clay wrote:I don't know why some of us have such a low level of self confidence in ourselves?

Exactly! Why are we hankering after importation of alien reactor systems when we have proven PHWRs?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 14 Sep 2008 18:27

U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative
Sunday, 14 September 2008, 11:34 pm
Press Release: US State Department

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 14 Sep 2008 18:31


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby harbans » 14 Sep 2008 18:38

Exactly! Why are we hankering after importation of alien reactor systems when we have proven PHWRs?

AFAIK scalability issues. India makes reactors 300-500 MW range. Imported reactors will be in the 1600 MW range.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 14 Sep 2008 18:38


merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby merlin » 14 Sep 2008 19:01

Gerard wrote:Who says that India only has pure fission or boosted fission devices? The NPAs?

People who have never even seen a nuke in real life far less design one? While the people like Anil Kakodar who designed same and assembled devices with their own hands in the desert are doubted?


PKI, for one, is not convinced we have a weaponisible thermonuclear device. Why drag the irrelevant NPAs into this?

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 14 Sep 2008 20:50

Because PKI's articles in recent times have been emitting too many fast neutrons of political bias, and his hyperventilating statements have been rather easily debunked. So his credibility is on par with that of the NPAs. IOW, a "sold-out" former expert.

renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby renukb » 14 Sep 2008 21:38

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/14/stories ... 090800.htm

India won’t wait for 123 to sign deals with France, Russia

NSG has opened the door and India intends

to go through it

India waiting to see how U.S. domestic process gets completed


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



New Delhi: Despite Washington’s expectation that India will wait for Congressional approval of the ‘123 agreement’ on bilateral nuclear cooperation before concluding deals with other suppliers, the government has decided to sign a landmark nuclear framework agreement with France during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Paris later this month.

Following last week’s waiver for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Bush administration is now trying to complete the U.S. domestic approval process for the 123 by September 26, when Congress formally adjourns, so that the issue does not require the convening of a special ‘lame duck’ session in December.

But regardless of the fate of the 123, India appears finally to have made up its mind to clinch its deals with France and Russia on a priority basis. “We will go ahead and sign with the French in Paris this month and with the Russians when [President] Medvedev comes to Delhi on December 4,” said an official source on condition of anonymity. The NSG had opened the door and India intended to go through it. Confirming that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had asked India to wait till the 123 was passed so that American companies were not disadvantaged, the sources said India had made no commitment to the U.S. “We have never said we will wait,” the source said, noting that External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had immediately clarified this issue when his remarks earlier in the week were taken as suggesting otherwise. “As for disadvantaging U.S. firms, the question does not arise because we are talking of a free market and competition,” the source added.

Hitting out at U.S. attempts to revise key provisions of the 123 agreement, the sources said that if President Bush and the State Department did not believe the text’s provisions were legally binding, “why did they put us through seven months of negotiations?” India, the source said, was now waiting to see how the U.S. domestic process got completed. “Let him complete his internal process and then come to us. [But] if the 123 comes with changes or conditions, we’ll see [our options].” Asked whether India might even refuse to sign the agreement if it came with riders that negated its key provisions, the source said, “Let us see. Until we actually sign, nothing is over.”

Washington’s approach, the sources stressed, was making it harder and harder for India to buy American material as and when the 123 was approved. “I think his own companies will now have to deal with him,” the source added.

India, he said, had taken up with the U.S. the contents of Mr. Bush’s September 10 letter to Congress as well as the State Department’s controversial replies to a set of questions raised by the House Foreign Relations Committee on the 123 agreement.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 14 Sep 2008 21:49



Let them spend the next century in the dark, for all I care.
They seem to think that farms are worth more than factories, so let them reap the consequences of that.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby gandharva » 14 Sep 2008 21:58

Live telecast of Devil's Advocate is going on. Arun Shourie accused Karan Thapar of lying through teeth.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23942
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby SSridhar » 14 Sep 2008 22:05

harbans wrote:Exactly! Why are we hankering after importation of alien reactor systems when we have proven PHWRs?

AFAIK scalability issues. India makes reactors 300-500 MW range. Imported reactors will be in the 1600 MW range.


Besides, associated fuel supply for the lifetime of the reactor.

renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby renukb » 14 Sep 2008 22:21

National

“India cannot import reactors without fuel supply assurance”

T.A.Subramanian

CHENNAI: M.R. Srinivasan, the former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), asserted on Saturday that unless India had assurances from the United States on the nuclear fuel supply as contained in the 123 agreement, “I cannot see how we can have any nuclear commerce for the import of reactors from the U.S.”

Dr. Srinivasan, who is now a member of the AEC, referred to U.S. President George W. Bush’s message to the Congress that American commitment on the uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel to India was not legally binding.

India’s understanding was that the U.S.’ assurances on the fuel supply under the 123 agreement were obligatory. India could not understand the differentiation between the legal obligations and the political obligations.

“Unfortunately, this is almost reminiscent of the Tarapur arrangement where an international agreement was not fulfilled by the U.S. on the ground that it was prevented from doing so under its domestic laws. Our friends in the U.S. must understand that India cannot import reactors without satisfactory assurance of fuel supply.”


http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/14/stories ... 080900.htm

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 14 Sep 2008 22:38

I don't know why we just give up so easily. We should continue to press the Australian govt on the issue. It's a matter of double standards, and these won't go away on their own, if we just bow our heads meekly and walk away in dejection.

Indians give up on buying Australian uranium

Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | September 13, 2008

INDIA has finally given up on Australia as a source of uranium for what is to be a massive nuclear power industry after being left in no doubt by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith that there is no chance of the Rudd Government changing its stand on the issue.

As he flew home from New Delhi last night after four days in India, Mr Smith told The Weekend Australian that in a meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the architect of the crucial Indo-US nuclear deal that is seen as central to the country's future, the matter of getting uranium from Australia was not discussed.

Indian government sources said this was because "from what we've heard from your Foreign Minister, there is absolutely no room for manoeuvre on the issue. So how much longer can we go on banging our heads against a brick wall?

"We can go elsewhere and buy uranium. South Africa and Canada have their order books open. That won't be a problem ... It's Australia that will be the loser in what is going to be a very, very big and very rich market."

During his visit, Mr Smith doggedly defended the Rudd Government's refusal to sell uranium to India despite the fact that it supported the waiver granted to the country earlier this month by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group that allows it access to the global trade in nuclear supplies.

"Our policy position is longstanding and well-known," Mr Smith said. "If you are not a party to the NPT, we don't export uranium to you. To have us export uranium to you requires membership of the NPT and a separate safeguards agreement."

Asked whether, given what he had found during four days in India, he thought it was time to advise the Rudd Government to rethink the policy, Mr Smith said: "I think I've spent four or five days in India, and I've spent many more days of my life at any number of ALP conferences."

Mr Smith was at pains to point out that Mr Singh did not raise the issue of uranium sales.

"He understood and respected our position on uranium just as I said we respected and understood their position on (not signing) the NPT," Mr Smith said.

"I understand all the commentary about the uranium issue, but one commodity in one industry does not a relationship make or break. The starting point of the Government of India is very warm, thanks to the position we took at the NSG.

"A second point made to me is that it is not as if (the ban on uranium sales) presents or creates an immediate practical problem for India. There are plenty of other alternative sources of uranium, and Indian officials would make the point that what was more important to India was the NSG and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) decisions rather than from whom to source uranium.

"The ALP's deliberation and consideration of uranium policy has a long and vexed history. But a long time ago we came to a party public-policy decision about the export of uranium and the NPT and I think that of any country there is a deeper understanding in India than elsewhere of a party-political position, especially a longstanding one."

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 14 Sep 2008 23:44

Ramana

A point to note. There is no need for the deal to be approved by US Congress its the Waiver that is important. And thats done.

Its only Indian reasonableness that prevents them from executing other agreements for commerce till the US Congress also agrees so that there is level playing field for the US businesses. This should not be misunderstood for deferrence.


This would be misreading the situation. It is not Indian reasonableness that is preventing India from going ahead with other countries. It is the other way around. It is the other countries who are waiting to see the deal being approved by US Congress, so that situation becomes more clear. Without US being fully on board, that waiver is almost a paper.

Sure, Russia and France can supply reactors to India but on their own, they are not that strong. The fact that USA had been able to make the entire NSG to say, Yes, inspite of many not wanting to, should tell a lot. So India does need the deal to be ratified by US Congress. Without that it would be a struggle.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rangudu » 14 Sep 2008 23:47

Not true.

Russia and France WILL supply anything we want regardless of the passage of 123. As a political quid-pro-quo India is right ti give the US one good shot at getting things cleared in the Congress. If that fails, it's US firms' loss not ours.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 14 Sep 2008 23:54

Rangudu

Russia and France WILL supply anything we want regardless of the passage of 123. As a political quid-pro-quo India is right ti give the US one good shot at getting things cleared in the Congress. If that fails, it's US firms' loss not ours.


In theory, yes, they will supply anything India wants.

However, this will become a moot point for it is highly unlikely that US Congress will not approve the deal/123.

Another thing.. Is it really being believed that US is doing this deal just for few billion dollars (to sell 2/3 reactors)?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rangudu » 14 Sep 2008 23:56

raj singh

I don't think you know what you are talking about. If the bottleneck is the Congress, then the NSG clearance is a joke.

The theory that you are propagating is simply a joke.

NSG clearance = 123 is meaningless.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 15 Sep 2008 00:05

Rangudu

I don't think you know what you are talking about. If the bottleneck is the Congress, then the NSG clearance is a joke.

The theory that you are propagating is simply a joke.

NSG clearance = 123 is meaningless.


I can say the same about you but that will not serve any purpose.

Without US being Fully with India on this, India would not be able to reap the full benefits even with the NSG waiver.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rangudu » 15 Sep 2008 00:09

What nonsense.

The US is fully on board. This is just a petty tussle between the executive a couple of obstinate legislators.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 15 Sep 2008 00:16

What nonsense.

The US is fully on board. This is just a petty tussle between the executive a couple of obstinate legislators.


Response was mainly to the following quote..


There is no need for the deal to be approved by US Congress its the Waiver that is important. And thats done.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Sep 2008 00:20

India needs to get the US into our energy market, just to keep the other players on their toes.
Otherwise, if we rest on our heels and become overly dependent on France and Russia, then sooner or later they'll start to become too pushy with us as well. The more players we have in our market, the more choices we have, and the better our safety margin.

By going to France and Russia first, it gives India and the Whitehouse more leverage to push the US Congress to pass the legislation asap with a minimum of adverse conditionalities. With the waiver as a fait d'accompli, the US Congress will be forced to recognize that their stonewalling and complaining is only disadvantaging US firms. India has no qualms against those US firms themselves or their technology, it's only the extra conditionalities from the US Congress which are the problem. But if we can satisfactorily keep the conditionalities within tolerable limits, then we should certainly bring the US players onto the field, to maximize the competition for India's market.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rangudu » 15 Sep 2008 01:02

raj singh

Seriously, you need to read up more.

95% of US legislators are for this deal. If it comes to the floor vote, this thing will pass nearly unanimously.
The House Speaker, Senate Majority leaders, chair of Senate committee in concern are all for it fully.

The obstacle here is from one committee chairman, Howard Berman, and a couple of ayatollah Congressmen like Ed Markey of MA. They can delay it if they make it a point but there simply aren't enough votes to block this thing.

If Howard Berman delays a vote, he'll have to face the wrath of his party leaders and business lobbies. Can he still delay it? Sure. But it's only going to be at the cost of his party's key constituencies.

Given this, your statements are meaningless.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Sep 2008 01:08

Still, it does no harm to ratchet up the pressure on them, by showing them that deals are being signed with France and Russia while they filibuster, fulminate, and pass hot air.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 15 Sep 2008 01:12

Rangudu

Seriously, you need to read up more.

95% of US legislators are for this deal. If it comes to the floor vote, this thing will pass nearly unanimously.
The House Speaker, Senate Majority leaders, chair of Senate committee in concern are all for it fully.

The obstacle here is from one committee chairman, Howard Berman, and a couple of ayatollah Congressmen like Ed Markey of MA. They can delay it if they make it a point but there simply aren't enough votes to block this thing.

If Howard Berman delays a vote, he'll have to face the wrath of his party leaders and business lobbies. Can he still delay it? Sure. But it's only going to be at the cost of his party's key constituencies.

Given this, your statements are meaningless.


You need to re read,to what I have responded to.

Once again, it has been said, that India does NOT NEED to have US Congress Approval.

My response is not on whether US congress will approve or not. US Congress will approve, that is almost given. That is not an issue.

Actually, since you are not either reading or understanding it, deliberately or otherwise, your unnecessary provocations are becoming senseless.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 15 Sep 2008 01:19

Sanjay M

Still, it does no harm to ratchet up the pressure on them, by showing them that deals are being signed with France and Russia while they filibuster, fulminate, and pass hot air.


True, but it is already known to the people who matter and who should know about it. Companies who have interest in these, through their lobbyists, have been sending the message for quite a while given that France and Russia have already shown their understanding in doing business in India. So it would not be such a news for those people.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rangudu » 15 Sep 2008 01:44

raj singh

What you call "provocations" are basically asking for you to make your point.

If your point is a philosophical one such as "If US is not on board, India will suffer" etc. is like saying the sky is blue.

If that is not the case, can you please make your point in 1-2 sentences?

For instance:

" I believe that the US Congress cannot withstand the business and executive pressure to pass the deal. Therefore the deal will be passed soon."

Can you make your point similarly?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Sep 2008 01:49

S.Valkan wrote:This will happen sooner or later, if India has indeed successfully tested a TN weapon in 1998.
I would like members, who have parsed through the statements of various officials on the matter to post anything here that indicates in clear terms that India has or is in a position to deploy TN weapons. The best, I have seen is confidence to deploy weapons of 200KT, to a max about 3 war heads, to fit the payload of Agni, indicating that it is a BF kind of device, envisioned.

Has anyone seen anything? I am not asking for a debate on the success of S1.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 15 Sep 2008 01:57

Rangudu

What you call "provocations" are basically asking for you to make your point.

If your point is a philosophical one such as "If US is not on board, India will suffer" etc. is like saying the sky is blue.

If that is not the case, can you please make your point in 1-2 sentences?

For instance:

" I believe that the US Congress cannot withstand the business and executive pressure to pass the deal. Therefore the deal will be passed soon."

Can you make your point similarly?


Not that I call them provocations but they are.

Anyway, how many times and in how many different ways you want me to say, that India Does Need Congress Approval? This was in response to an earlier statement, "India does not need US Congress approval".

This was/is the point and has been said in few sentences.

And you keep on coming back to the part that Congress will pass it or there could be delay or there is petty squabble between executive and a couple of legislators. And this part was not even in contention.

Even a novice would know that US has invested so heavily in this, and have come this far, is not going to stop just when destination is so close. Wonder why there is insistence from your side on Congress will approve or delay part.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rangudu » 15 Sep 2008 02:14

raj singh,

You could have said "India does need US Congress approval," and saved some effort and bandwidth.

My response is "You are wrong and could not be more wrong"

Let's end it there. I'm not interested in arguing where the other party cannot make a pithy point. Arguing for the sake of arguing is the most useless type of activity thereis.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 15 Sep 2008 02:27

Rangudu

You could have said "India does need US Congress approval," and saved some effort and bandwidth.

My response is "You are wrong and could not be more wrong"

Let's end it there. I'm not interested in arguing where the other party cannot make a pithy point. Arguing for the sake of arguing is the most useless type of activity thereis


Credit for wasting effort and bandwidth goes solely to you on this. For, in my very first post I had written India needs US Congress Approval. But it is you who has been refusing to read it.

And it is you who has been arguing for the sake of it, pronouncing judgements, with put-downers, in a self congratulatory manner, and believing them to be true.

Sure, let us end it here.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 15 Sep 2008 03:59

ShauryaT wrote: post anything here that indicates in clear terms that India has or is in a position to deploy TN weapons.


http://www.fas.org/news/india/1998/05/980500-conf.htm
Q: We hear that Shakti 1 is not a thermonuclear device but a boosted fission device?
A: (RC) - As I said earlier, a thermonuclear device has two stages a fission trigger and a secondary stage. This was a thermonuclear device as it had two stages.


from Google cache of an Indian Express report
Only one out of the five nuclear devices tested at Pokhran in May, 1998, was a weapon, the rest being devices with "weaponisable configuration", Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman R Chidambaram has said.
Pointing out the difference between a weapon and a weaponisable configuration, Chidambaram said a host of other parameters, including the reaction of the device with the environment, has to be taken into account before a weaponisable configuration is converted into a weapon.


Google cache of Rediff report
India now has the capability to design and fabricate nuclear weapons of yields ranging from 'low' to around 200 kilo tons, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Dr Rajgopal Chidambaram said in Bombay on Monday.

''The five carefully planned and completely successful nuclear weapon tests at Pokhran on May 11 and 13, 1998, http://www.rediff.com/news/bomb.htm and confirmation of design yields by seismic, radiochemical and other studies carried out by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), gave us the capability to design and fabricate nuclear weapons ranging from low yield to around 200 kilo tons,'' Dr Chidambaram told nuclear scientists and technocrats at the BARC.
''That was in May 1998 and since then a great deal of scientific and technological development has taken place,''

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rangudu » 15 Sep 2008 04:59

1. That 95% of the US legislature and all of the executive leadership are behind pasing the 123 is not in doubt.

2. The US government is also keen not to handicap US firms vying for India's n-reactor market

3. However, if Ayatollah Berman is adamant, the US govt can choose to tell India informally to go ahead with the Russia and France deals and then leave space for US firms for the next round.

4. In the end, the US President is not going to try to derail Indian deals with other NSG nations just because some Congressional Ayatollah has khujli about the 123

5. In fact, if Berman uses his power to delay the deal, the pressure on him will be overwhelming next January because US firms will be even more desperate not to miss the second Indian bonanza.

Conclusion - Even if US Congress does not approve the 123 within the next few days, India can and will conclude deals with France and Russia. In other words, anyone who argued that US Congressional approval is needed for India to conclude deals with France and Russia will have to re-examine his/her logical thinking capabilities.

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 » 15 Sep 2008 05:11

merlin wrote:
Gerard wrote:Who says that India only has pure fission or boosted fission devices? The NPAs?

People who have never even seen a nuke in real life far less design one? While the people like Anil Kakodar who designed same and assembled devices with their own hands in the desert are doubted?


PKI, for one, is not convinced we have a weaponisible thermonuclear device. Why drag the irrelevant NPAs into this?

Neither is leader of Shakti test series, and people like Anil Kakodkar worked as team member under him to assemble the said devices in desert. IMHO much water has flown since 1998 and India undoubtedly been working on TN since then, but absent either a test or an institutionalized LIF and multiple independent weapons teams, credibility of new design will remain questionable.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 15 Sep 2008 05:21

Link ?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests