India nuclear news and discussion

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 Sep 2008 08:43

Well, it's ironic that Imperial Japan's predations are what created the ChiCom menace to begin with. Yet we're the ones who ended up suffering the most collateral damage from this.
Anyhow, Japan with its ever-aging population seems destined to become a has-been faded former great-power. The new generation of Japanese youth don't seem to be as impressively hard-workers as the previous generations of Japanese. It seems a foregone conclusion that China will overtake them.

Anyhow, I think that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or North Korea might force the Japanese to go nuclear. I don't know what it would do to the disposition of US forces in South Korea though.

I'm thinking that India may have to rely upon Indonesia more so that Japan to keep the Chinese navy out of the Indian Ocean.

Say, how does this 123 Deal affect our N-sub program, again?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Sep 2008 09:36

123 is about civilian nuclear program and trade with NSG members , it will not affect military programs or programs directly/indirectly connected with military .

We have to go alone with on reactors for sub program.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Sep 2008 09:38

Since we will be importing only LWR , what is that the US and Russian can offer ?

What about technology , are the Russian and US new gen reactors as good as french ones ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Sep 2008 09:58

In my opinion Bush's statement is nothing to loose sleep over , to me in terms of scope of the deal and its global imprint there can be no legal binding as such , whatever paperwork was to be done has been ratified by the NSG . Its now upto India as to how we approach and select appropriate parties to deal with keeping in mind not only the economics and the technology involved but also the reliability of the supplier , and this can be only ensured by diversifying fuel suppliers .

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 13 Sep 2008 10:56

EPR is a pressurized water reactor.

The two European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) Units under construction now, one in Finland and the other in France, are experiencing time and cost overruns. From wiki:

European Pressurized Reactor

. . .
Progress

In May 2006 construction delays of about one year were announced, following quality control problems across the construction. In part the delays were due to the lack of oversight of subcontractors inexperienced in nuclear construction. The delays led to disappointing financial results for the Areva NP. {May be they have planned to recoup their losses through the India sales.} It blamed delays on the Finnish approach to approving technical documentation and designs. In December 2006 TVO announced construction was about 18 months behind schedule so completion was now expected 2010-2011, and there were reports that Areva was preparing to take a € 500 million charge on its accounts for the delay. At the end of June 2007 it was reported that Säteilyturvakeskus, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, had found a number of safety-related design and manufacturing 'deficiencies'. In August 2007 a further construction delay of up to a year was reported associated with construction problems in reinforcing the reactor building to withstand an airplane crash, and the timely supply of adequate documentation to the Finnish authorities. In September 2007 TVO reported the construction delay as "at least two years" and costs more than 25% over budget. Cost estimates by analysts for the over-run range up to € 1.5 billion.
. . .

I remember reading recently that UK has now decided not to go for EPR although at one time it was under consideration for their "nuclear renaissance".

Long ago, India began construction of Rajasthan 1 even before its Canadian "leader Unit", Douglas Point had generated enough operational experience. In the end, Rajasthan 1 could not operate satisfactorily and faced many problems. It is now dysfunctional, even before its design life is completed. It required the Indian genius to adapt the Canadian designs to innovate and make the PHWR concept work satisfactorily under Indian conditions. When we have a proven PHWR design in hand why pander to the "phoren" craze?

I think foreign agencies who are now willing to provide "upfront" funding for their plants to be put up in India (based on a business model that envisages reaping benefits at a later date from Indian electricity users), may as well agree to provide suppliers' credit for equipment ordered on them to be manufactured as per our PHWR specifications.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 Sep 2008 11:13

India 'affronted' over uranium ban
September 13, 2008 02:18pm

INDIA is "deeply affronted" by Australia's decision not to sell it uranium, despite the Rudd Government's protestations to the contrary, Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Andrew Robb said today.

Even though it's the Australian opposition pointing it out -- I too often wonder why India expresses itself on international affairs in mainly emotional terms. We always make a point of expressing our "affront" or how much we have been offended by this or that. You never see other big powers behave this way. I'm saying that it makes us look like simple-minded emotionally-driven creatures, typical of the underdeveloped world.

We could have instead pointed out how Australians are losing out on a good market opportunity and many billions of dollars in revenue, as well as a chance to gain a strategic foothold in taking ties to a new level. But instead we mainly express our upset feelings, as if throwing a tantrum will somehow make our case more convincing.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 Sep 2008 11:17

Sanatanan wrote:
EPR is a pressurized water reactor.
The two European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) Units under construction now, one in Finland and the other in France, are experiencing time and cost overruns. From wiki:

European Pressurized Reactor

. . .
Progress

In May 2006 construction delays of about one year were announced, following quality control problems across the construction. In part the delays were due to the lack of oversight of subcontractors inexperienced in nuclear construction. The delays led to disappointing financial results for the Areva NP. {May be they have planned to recoup their losses through the India sales.} It blamed delays on the Finnish approach to approving technical documentation and designs. In December 2006 TVO announced construction was about 18 months behind schedule so completion was now expected 2010-2011, and there were reports that Areva was preparing to take a € 500 million charge on its accounts for the delay. At the end of June 2007 it was reported that Säteilyturvakeskus, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, had found a number of safety-related design and manufacturing 'deficiencies'. In August 2007 a further construction delay of up to a year was reported associated with construction problems in reinforcing the reactor building to withstand an airplane crash, and the timely supply of adequate documentation to the Finnish authorities. In September 2007 TVO reported the construction delay as "at least two years" and costs more than 25% over budget. Cost estimates by analysts for the over-run range up to € 1.5 billion.
. . .

I remember reading recently that UK has now decided not to go for EPR although at one time it was under consideration for their "nuclear renaissance".

Long ago, India began construction of Rajasthan 1 even before its Canadian "leader Unit", Douglas Point had generated enough operational experience. In the end, Rajasthan 1 could not operate satisfactorily and faced many problems. It is now dysfunctional, even before its design life is completed. It required the Indian genius to adapt the Canadian designs to innovate and make the PHWR concept work satisfactorily under Indian conditions. When we have a proven PHWR design in hand why pander to the "phoren" craze?

I think foreign agencies who are now willing to provide "upfront" funding for their plants to be put up in India (based on a business model that envisages reaping benefits at a later date from Indian electricity users), may as well agree to provide suppliers' credit for equipment ordered on them to be manufactured as per our PHWR specifications.

This is why it's best to bring in as many different nuclear suppliers as possible early on. Because we don't want to be suffering the Admiral Gorshkov problem over and over again.
We need to make use of the power of choice, in order to avoid suffering white elephants.
Energy is a sector we can't afford to flub, since so many hopes are riding on it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Sep 2008 11:17

More "nuclear bombshells"!The print edition says that the 45 NSG nations"privately agreed" NOT to sell to India sensitive technology like reprocessing and enrichment of fuel.It was this "private agreement" that was the deciding factor that allowed the NSG to lift the waiver.In short,India and its messiah MMS,have shortchanged the people of India,fully knowing the limitations of the deal,but pretending that we are now "full members" of the nucelar club! Lies,chicanery and betrayal of India's interests by all connected with this greatest ever fraud upon the Indian people! Even our mortal enemies have wounded us less.

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... l8os=&SEO=

NSG not to sell sensitive technologies to India

IANS 12 Sep 2008 01:43:00 AM ISTWASHINGTON: While granting its waiver, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) privately agreed not to sell sensitive technologies to India, a US daily reported Friday, adding fuel to the fire over the India-US civil nuclear deal.

Citing unnamed sources familiar with the NSG discussions at Vienna last week, the Washington Post said its previously undisclosed understanding helped persuade several sceptical member states to support a waiver authorising nuclear trade with India.

'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.

The report comes shortly after US President George Bush's assertion that assurances about reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India were 'political commitments' and not legally binding on the US - stirring a fresh controversy over the deal.

In his message asking Congress to approve the implementing 123 agreement, Bush said: 'In Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India Agreement (but) does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other US agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement.'

The Post said the NSG separately is nearing consensus on a total ban on sensitive sales to countries such as India that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty - a move that would put such trade even further out of New Delhi's reach.

The NSG discussion has received little public attention, but it was another factor in persuading countries such as Ireland, New Zealand and Austria to end their effort to write such trade restrictions into the waiver for India, the newspaper suggested.

'In the discussions about how to handle enrichment and reprocessing, it was made clear that nobody had any plans to transfer such technologies to India in the foreseeable future,' a senior US official was quoted as saying.

While such statements were not binding, he said, the NSG countries recognised that they were planning to 'tighten up' the rules on such sales in the near future, allowing them to achieve the same restrictions on India later without causing a diplomatic rupture now.

The current NSG guidelines call for members 'to exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices'.

Several member countries, such as Canada and Argentina, are seeking language that would permit them to develop and sell their own nuclear fuel technology, but all members appear to agree that countries that have not signed the treaty should be banned from such trade, the Post said.

PS:So India has mortgaged its entire civilian and strategic nuclear heritage for the equivalent of a "counterfeit note"!

BSR Murthy · Post by **BSR Murthy** » 13 Sep 2008 11:36

US Democrat lawmakers raise objection to N-deal

The three-person group led by Massachussetts Congressman Edward Markey has said that there are many lingering questions about the deal that require further examination and hence Congress should rule out any rush for an expedited vote for its ratification...

Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been joined in the call by California Democrat Ellen O Tauscher, the Chair of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee and John Spratt, the chair of the House Budget Committee

Time for India to fast-track the reactor deals with RU and France and time to line up some Uranium supply contracts.
I too wish India talks in a business like fashion without emotion.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 Sep 2008 11:51

Philip wrote:More "nuclear bombshells"!The print edition says that the 45 NSG nations"privately agreed" NOT to sell to India sensitive technology like reprocessing and enrichment of fuel.It was this "private agreement" that was the deciding factor that allowed the NSG to lift the waiver.In short,India and its messiah MMS,have shortchanged the people of India,fully knowing the limitations of the deal,but pretending that we are now "full members" of the nucelar club! Lies,chicanery and betrayal of India's interests by all connected with this greatest ever fraud upon the Indian people! Even our mortal enemies have wounded us less.

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... l8os=&SEO=

NSG not to sell sensitive technologies to India

IANS 12 Sep 2008 01:43:00 AM ISTWASHINGTON: While granting its waiver, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) privately agreed not to sell sensitive technologies to India, a US daily reported Friday, adding fuel to the fire over the India-US civil nuclear deal.

Citing unnamed sources familiar with the NSG discussions at Vienna last week, the Washington Post said its previously undisclosed understanding helped persuade several sceptical member states to support a waiver authorising nuclear trade with India.

'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.

The report comes shortly after US President George Bush's assertion that assurances about reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India were 'political commitments' and not legally binding on the US - stirring a fresh controversy over the deal.

In his message asking Congress to approve the implementing 123 agreement, Bush said: 'In Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India Agreement (but) does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other US agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement.'

The Post said the NSG separately is nearing consensus on a total ban on sensitive sales to countries such as India that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty - a move that would put such trade even further out of New Delhi's reach.

The NSG discussion has received little public attention, but it was another factor in persuading countries such as Ireland, New Zealand and Austria to end their effort to write such trade restrictions into the waiver for India, the newspaper suggested.

'In the discussions about how to handle enrichment and reprocessing, it was made clear that nobody had any plans to transfer such technologies to India in the foreseeable future,' a senior US official was quoted as saying.

While such statements were not binding, he said, the NSG countries recognised that they were planning to 'tighten up' the rules on such sales in the near future, allowing them to achieve the same restrictions on India later without causing a diplomatic rupture now.

The current NSG guidelines call for members 'to exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices'.

Several member countries, such as Canada and Argentina, are seeking language that would permit them to develop and sell their own nuclear fuel technology, but all members appear to agree that countries that have not signed the treaty should be banned from such trade, the Post said.

PS:So India has mortgaged its entire civilian and strategic nuclear heritage for the equivalent of a "counterfeit note"!

Unless that "understanding" is in writing, then what assures that it would hold? Just the "honour system"?
Money talks, and if the French and Russians are willing to sell us their enrichment tech, then what will keep the other holdouts locked in place for futile ends?

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Sep 2008 14:07

Philip wrote:More "nuclear bombshells"!The print edition says that the 45 NSG nations"privately agreed" NOT to sell to India sensitive technology like reprocessing and enrichment of fuel.It was this "private agreement" that was the deciding factor that allowed the NSG to lift the waiver.In short,India and its messiah MMS,have shortchanged the people of India,fully knowing the limitations of the deal,but pretending that we are now "full members" of the nucelar club! Lies,chicanery and betrayal of India's interests by all connected with this greatest ever fraud upon the Indian people! Even our mortal enemies have wounded us less.

Philip,

You know it helps if you occasionally read what others post as well. RaviBeg posted this report on the previous page:

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/13/stories ... 831200.htm

Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France

“We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel,” French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont told reporters here.

I hope you'll notice that as opposed to the unnamed sources story you quote, this one in Hindu actually quotes the French Ambassador as saying France is willing let us reprocess the fuel.

A lot of reports are flying around, especially in the Western media, which are planted stories by the NPA which is positioning itself for a last ditch stance at the US Congress.

One can choose to view all information with an open mind or one can choose to believe only those reports which fuel one's own prejudices - that's an individual choice.

Meanwhile IMO constant ad hominem attacks on the Prime Minister of this country is becoming more boring rather than objectionable.

Cheers!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Sep 2008 15:00

The post quoted was from the NI Express front page,quoting from a US newspaper.There are other reports that France is offering us a 1st-gen-reactor only,not their latest tech.Australia is not going to sell us uranium,so where's the truth of the PM's assurances to India that we will be admitted into the nuclear club as "full members" with all the rights and priviliges? In fact his statements are becoming blatan,boring untruths as we are discovering day-by-day,not mine pointing out him being economical with the truth!This deal has nor been an unconditional deal as promised,but is full of conditions and unwritten punishments if we do not toe the NSG/US line.

Please explain to me why after so many months of intense negotiations both open and in secret with the US,India and the US differ on the issue whether the deal is "legally binding" or them or not! Have they both been speaking "at" each other instead of "to" each other or have each been speaking in a different language or using a different dictionary?

As for France,offering us a 1st-gen reactor design,sure it will allow us to reprocess fuel,it knows that we can do it ourselves,it wants to make money out of us,but will it give us its latest technology? The agreement quoted clearly says that the 45 NSG nations will NOT give India their "latest technology".As one of our distinguished nuclear bosses said,they will sell us cheap stuff at high prices with conditions imposed.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Sep 2008 15:34

the EPR reactor is the 1st gen of the next-gen

it is the leading edge.

There are other reports that France is offering us a 1st-gen-reactor only,not their latest tech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_P ... ed_Reactor

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 13 Sep 2008 17:18

There is not a single report saying that EPR 1st generation offered by France is not their latest tech. That is the inference you drew after reading the words '1st generation' and you didn't even bother to read about EPR

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 13 Sep 2008 19:48

Philip wrote:
Please explain to me why after so many months of intense negotiations both open and in secret with the US,India and the US differ on the issue whether the deal is "legally binding" or them or not! Have they both been speaking "at" each other instead of "to" each other or have each been speaking in a different language or using a different dictionary?

.

This is all to satisfy domestic politics. If Australia does not want to sell U then we purchase from Kazakstan or Niger. If US does not want to sell us some tech, then we can purchase from France.

But let us face the facts. India is not going to be able to test more nukes in the near future.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 13 Sep 2008 20:10

Please define sensitive, in context to the NSG background agreement and also the clarification by POTUS!!

People need to play to their galleries. People need to satisfy others who matter, and play of words, crossed fingers, and glossing over are the norm. How many of us married folk played that between the mom and wife? (I quote that example, because I just happened to use that only moments ago)

Sure, no one is going to give us technology (in shrink wrap) to do 90% enrichment. No one is going to give us blueprints and CNC machine code to machine bum parts. No one is going to give us reprocessing technology that gets you WgPu.

That is probably the definition of sensitive

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 13 Sep 2008 21:16

Strategic Partner ship
"Bush explodes in America, Bull S*#t eminates in India"
Spinster

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Sep 2008 21:38

Australia is not going to sell us uranium,so where's the truth of the PM's assurances to India that we will be admitted into the nuclear club as "full members" with all the rights and priviliges?

It doesn't look like Australia will be selling Russia any Uranium either....

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Sep 2008 21:42

no one is going to give us technology (in shrink wrap) to do 90% enrichment. No one is going to give us blueprints and CNC machine code to machine bum parts. No one is going to give us reprocessing technology that gets you WgPu.

and India has all of this technology already....

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 13 Sep 2008 22:18

amit wrote:
Philip wrote:More "nuclear bombshells"!The print edition says that the 45 NSG nations"privately agreed" NOT to sell to India sensitive technology like reprocessing and enrichment of fuel.It was this "private agreement" that was the deciding factor that allowed the NSG to lift the waiver.In short,India and its messiah MMS,have shortchanged the people of India,fully knowing the limitations of the deal,but pretending that we are now "full members" of the nucelar club! Lies,chicanery and betrayal of India's interests by all connected with this greatest ever fraud upon the Indian people! Even our mortal enemies have wounded us less.
Philip,

You know it helps if you occasionally read what others post as well. RaviBeg posted this report on the previous page:

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/13/stories ... 831200.htm

Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France

“We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel,” French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont told reporters here.
I hope you'll notice that as opposed to the unnamed sources story you quote, this one in Hindu actually quotes the French Ambassador as saying France is willing let us reprocess the fuel.

A lot of reports are flying around, especially in the Western media, which are planted stories by the NPA which is positioning itself for a last ditch stance at the US Congress.

One can choose to view all information with an open mind or one can choose to believe only those reports which fuel one's own prejudices - that's an individual choice.

Meanwhile IMO constant ad hominem attacks on the Prime Minister of this country is becoming more boring rather than objectionable.

Cheers!

Amit,

I agree with Philip's comments and concerns. The French Ambassador's statements does not have to contradict the NSG countries agreeing privately not to sell sensitive technologies to India. This has been clarified by Philip in a later post.

Also can the NSG countries formally decide to not sell sensitive technologies to countries that have not signed the NPT - in future? India can buy reactors but not much else?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Sep 2008 22:32

Sure, no one is going to give us technology (in shrink wrap) to do 90% enrichment. No one is going to give us blueprints and CNC machine code to machine bum parts. No one is going to give us reprocessing technology that gets you WgPu.

What am I missing. This tech is already being "given" to other nations, these techs will be under IAEA - so no question about bomb grade anything, it will be used ONLY for civilian purposes, and, IF they do not give it India, they will have to take back the waste material - which they cannot.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Sep 2008 22:49

fuel/reprocessing rights and enrichment/reprocessing technology are not the same thing.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Sep 2008 00:13

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

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

Riders, amendments will jeopardise nuclear agreement with U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Sep 2008 00:15

“India cannot import reactors without fuel supply assurance”

“India cannot import reactors without fuel supply assurance”
T.S. 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 between India and the U.S., “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 the American commitment on the uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel to India was not legally binding.

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

The former AEC chairman added: “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.”

Sean · Post by **Sean** » 14 Sep 2008 01:14

Rishirishi wrote:
Philip wrote:
This is all to satisfy domestic politics. If Australia does not want to sell U then we purchase from Kazakstan or Niger. If US does not want to sell us some tech, then we can purchase from France.

But let us face the facts. India is not going to be able to test more nukes in the near future.

Does India really need to test in the near future? Five missiles, each with 200 kt warheads, is more of a threat than one 1,000 kt warhead as there is a very low probabilty that all five 200 kt missiles will malfunction, or not get through the enemy's anti-missile shields.

It is much cheaper to build few more missiles than to test in the near future. Why not wait 10 years to test, by which time India's GDP will be twice as large and there will be sufficient fuel stockpile for domestic, imported reactors, and enough Pu for FTBR/thorium reactors.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Sep 2008 01:17

India 'affronted' over uranium ban

Sean · Post by **Sean** » 14 Sep 2008 01:40

RaviBg wrote:[
“India cannot import reactors without fuel supply assurance”
The former AEC chairman added: “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.”

US can be rewarded for pushing through the NSG waiver by India purchasing military hardware, and not nuclear reactors.

If US reactors have to be part of any deal, then it must come through the French as part of a US/French joint venture--with Indian and French bilateral governing the deal.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 14 Sep 2008 03:46

> Please explain to me why after so many months of intense negotiations both open and in
> secret with the US,India and the US differ on the issue whether the deal is "legally binding"
> or them or not!

It all points to an impending mess that will reveal itself in about a year or two from now when the whole process breaks down Enron style.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 14 Sep 2008 04:09

Sean wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:
Does India really need to test in the near future? Five missiles, each with 200 kt warheads, is more of a threat than one 1,000 kt warhead as there is a very low probabilty that all five 200 kt missiles will malfunction, or not get through the enemy's anti-missile shields.

It is much cheaper to build few more missiles than to test in the near future. Why not wait 10 years to test, by which time India's GDP will be twice as large and there will be sufficient fuel stockpile for domestic, imported reactors, and enough Pu for FTBR/thorium reactors.

Indian nukes are of very basic design. To be totally credable, India requires 1 megaton bombs. While India has all the required components, it can't really be shure everything works, before it tests them.

But on the other side, the 150 kt cabability will make countries think twice before attacking India. But fact remains. China can do much more damage to India, then vice versa.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Sep 2008 05:23

Rishirishi wrote:Indian nukes are of very basic design. To be totally credable, India requires 1 megaton bombs.

India developed its first nukes more than thirty four years ago. No adversary will assume they remain 'very basic' after three and a half decades.
The most sophisticated French weapon is 90 kt. The entire UK arsenal relies on 100 kt warheads. Megaton weapons were previously deployed because of the inaccuracy of delivery systems. They are obsolete now with the increased accuracy of ICBMs and SLBMs.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 14 Sep 2008 06:32

The Stalinist media is playing an interesting role now. The aim seems to be to sabotage the vote at the US Congress by deliberately quoting 'anonymous officials' that India will not wait for US to ratify the pact and therefore start buying rightaway from France/Russia. By making the officials and GOI look ungrateful and unreliable, it seems to think the Bush admin will lose interest and Congress will not pass the bill at least not this year. Then the full anti-US propaganda can be unleashed, accusing it of all kinds of things.

At the same time, India will be forced to buy at higher price from Russians as no one else will want to sell without US blessing. And also be pushed into the Russian anti-US axis. It also sets the stage for confrontational relationship with many of the NSG states in future meetings.

Beware!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Sep 2008 07:10

France. Then is he not visiting DC too close to that time?

It is a done deal.

Only remaining aspect is sending invites to ALL the NPAs. They all must be preparing articles for Paki news papers - the only international place they have credibility.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Sep 2008 08:28

NRao wrote:
Sure, no one is going to give us technology (in shrink wrap) to do 90% enrichment. No one is going to give us blueprints and CNC machine code to machine bum parts. No one is going to give us reprocessing technology that gets you WgPu.
What am I missing. This tech is already being "given" to other nations, these techs will be under IAEA - so no question about bomb grade anything, it will be used ONLY for civilian purposes, and, IF they do not give it India, they will have to take back the waste material - which they cannot.

With respect to the Civil facilities and materials, we will be given rights and technology to enrich and re process for reactor use.

But no rights or technology to enrich and re process for weapon use. Fair enough!! (of course assuming weapons needs higher levels of capability.)

That is what exactly EVERYONE is saying. Just the half full/half empty argument onlee.

Can you blame them? How may times/places you have seen NPAs howling about weapons technology being transferred?

Now, there is a concern about the word technology. We DO have technology to do all that ourselves, but that is for our own equipment and cocktail of materials. Can we handle the stuff that is going to be imported ourselves? Sure thing, but why bother spend time and resources developing those, when logically that should come with the stuff.

Example: You buy a TV. You can install, programme and use it (mostly) if you just get the product. But a user manual, installation guide, and set of cables would make things a lot simple, and you would EXPECT them to be part of the deal.

But would you get the circuit diagram and the firmware code for the controller?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Sep 2008 08:30

With respect to the Civil facilities and materials, we will be given rights and technology to enrich and re process for reactor use.

Rights yes, technology is a different matter altogether.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Sep 2008 08:47

Gerard, what is the problem with technology?

I base my views on the strict terms that we buy reactors and materials to generate electricity, and reprocess the waste for the same purpose. For a moment, let us take the whole deal, and everyone involved bona fide.

You get the reactors and initial fuel to run them. What is wrong in facilitating re processing targeting same or other civil reactors? Since the materials itself are under safeguards, the only remaining concern is that the smart yindoos will take the technology and implement/improve their weapons programme, indirectly helping it.

But we already have all those. The technology here means the specific information needed to process the specific waste from the specific type of reactor, like isotope mix, presense/absense of poison molecules etc. The rest we already know. That information has no use for the weapoin work, because that material will not be used there.

OTOH, information, like how to remove the extra "hydromonoxipide" concentration to make WgPu won't be given, and we don't need it. We just need info to make it RgPu.

And I think the parties involved are rational enough to do that.

S.Valkan · Post by **S.Valkan** » 14 Sep 2008 08:53

Back after a long time.

Looks like my salami slicing theory is taking solid shape.

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

Gerard wrote: India developed its first nukes more than thirty four years ago. No adversary will assume they remain 'very basic' after three and a half decades.

All said and done, perception is the key.

The public perception of TN warheads is the Tsar Bomba type, not the W-88 type.

Given the incessant negative NPA propaganda about the Shakti test ranging from "partially successful" to "it was a fizzle", all the scientific proof provided by Satinder Sikka and others would have been lost in such melee.

Since a megaton test is not feasible in this day and age of underground testing, the only way for a change in global perception is for the US ( via CIA or some such credible front ) to publicly declare that the Indian TN test was a success, and that it was indeed a sophisticated 200kT design,using boosted fission primary, and comparable to the latest nukes in the P-5 arsenal.

This will happen sooner or later, if India has indeed successfully tested a TN weapon in 1998.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Sep 2008 08:55

Let me add also that a lot of people here validate the NPA concern that the smart yindoos will steal stuff and make bums.

Change your viewpoint. This is a CIVIL deal. Remove all weapons aspirations from the deal. The only concern should be will it CAP our weapons.

Then, unless you are an extremeJingo (eJingo), who want 2000 megabums, you will find the deal acceptable.

S.Valkan · Post by **S.Valkan** » 14 Sep 2008 09:11

Dileep wrote:What is wrong in facilitating re processing targeting same or other civil reactors?

We just need info to make it RgPu.

And I think the parties involved are rational enough to do that.

Suffice it to say that, officially , there will be no transfer of such technology, so as to set a precedent, and prevent the nuclear have-nots from challenging the next fuel cartel aka GNEP.

However, you can be almost 100% sure that the deal with the US is that unofficially, the technology would be provided for reprocessing fuel from the civilian reactors that India buys, albeit without much fanfare, so as not to create ripples on the surface.

India will simply say it is utilizing some sort of "indigenous" solution to enrich/reprocess.

It's all a game, you know!

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Sep 2008 09:17

We'll walk away if 123 is diluted

senior officials have conveyed India's opposition to the US rewriting the fundamental interpretations of the agreement. Sources said even if US senators seek to append any "amendment" to the 123 agreement while voting on it, India would reject it.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 14 Sep 2008 09:35

India developed its first nukes more than thirty four years ago. No adversary will assume they remain 'very basic' after three and a half decades.
The most sophisticated French weapon is 90 kt. The entire UK arsenal relies on 100 kt warheads. Megaton weapons were previously deployed because of the inaccuracy of delivery systems. They are obsolete now with the increased accuracy of ICBMs and SLBMs.

90kT and 100kT yield using pure fission or boosted fission devices? I don't think so.

Even if 100 kT is reacheable using boosted fission devices, would not a true thermonuclear device of similar yield be lighter, more efficient in terms of using fissile material and smaller? Not to mention using less fissile material. If so, that is a good device to have rather than be constrained by boosted fission devices.