India nuclear news and discussion

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Arun_S » 04 Mar 2009 12:03

India aims to generate 60,000 MW of nuclear energy by 2030

New Delhi, Jan 8: India today said it will scale up nuclear energy production to 60,000 megawatts by 2030 after signing the pending N-deals with more countries.

"It is our expectation to achieve generation of 60,000 MW of nuclear energy by 2030. The earlier target was 20,000 MW by 2020. The expectation has been increased with the kind of opportunities we are having now with more N-deals coming up for signing," Shyam Saran, Special Envoy to Prime Minister on the Nuclear Deal, told reporters here.

Saran said India has reached an agreement with Kazakhstan, Russia, France and there were letter of intent for generation of 10,000 MW of nuclear power in collaboration with the US.

"There are a large number of players and the capacity is going to be large," he said.

Saran said the Indian nuclear programme had for the last 40 years been intertwined between strategic and civilian programmes, which had been a bottleneck for private players to participate.

"Now India has prepared a separation plan, which would be completed by 2014. Until a complete separation takes place, bringing in private sector may create certain difficulty," he said.

The government, Saran said, would soon amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 to enable private participation in the civil nuclear programme that the Act had originally barred.

"The government doesn't have a closed mind on private participation in the nuclear programme. But the government is cautious about it, as it is a sensitive subject. It would take a while before allowing private participation," he said.

Saran, however, did not elaborate by when the Atomic Energy Act would be amended. But, Saran earlier told the Indo-US Economic Summit currently in progress in the city that the private players could currently examine participation in certain components of the nuclear programme through the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

"Once the private players gain experience in the nuclear field, the government may consider allowing them to establish nuclear plants of their own," he added.

The nuclear deal, the former Foreign Secretary said, would allow for fruitful partnership between Indian private sector with foreign players and the spin-off would be significant in dual-use technologies.

Saran said India would soon sign the international convention on liability insurance and the matter would be taken up by the Cabinet for a decision soon. However, he did not elaborate on the issue.

The Special Envoy said the country would be able to produce 10,000 MW of nuclear energy for the next 40 years if it relied only on its own Uranium reserves. { Arun: The special envoy is wrong, as per GoI's latest statement in light of doubling of Indian Uranium reserves announced by MMS govt after vote buying in Parliament}

But, under the three-stage nuclear energy programme, New Delhi would like to move to Thorium-based reactors in the third stage from the Uranium-based reactors.{ Arun: The special envoy is dead quite on why the Civil Nuclear deal did not allow fuel to directly jump start civil AHWR thorium reactor !}

He also hailed the Indo-US nuclear deal and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group's waiver for opening up the entire international market for India and for breaking the shackles of the New Delhi-specific technology denial regimes.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Sanatanan » 05 Mar 2009 16:54

From [COVERT] Magazine, (1st to 15th March 2009):
Off Limits | Seema Mustafa

subterfuge was used to sell a nuclear lie

It was interesting to read a report in a newspaper that had supported the US-India civilian nuclear energy agreement with resounding passion, that India did not need the US deal to power its nuclear plants. It has quoted a “damning” CAG report that has now made it clear to the nation that atomic energy available with the country could have lit an additional 40 million homes. And that this was not done because the Department of Atomic Energy had not mined and used the “extensive uranium reserves lying untapped for years”.

These facts were highlighted by the nuclear scientists in brilliant articles written during the three years that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Congress, and the UPA Cabinet were chasing the nuclear deal with the US. The scientists opposing the deal had also pointed towards the rich thorium reserves available in the country, and had repeatedly warned against the dangers of bringing the indigenous and highly successful atomic energy programme under international and US control. They had been rubbished by the media and the Government as “anti national”, and questions about their integrity and capability had been raised in what can only be described as a shameful manner.

The present DAE chief Anil Kakodkar, after he made peace with the Government, and joined the rah-rah bandwagon of US deal supporters, was embraced by the establishment as a true patriot. He has now, according to the newspaper report, admitted that the DAE goofed up, and “if a formal mechanism had been in place, it [DAE] could have probably anticipated and taken corrective action pertaining to the mismatch between demand and supply of inputs for the nuclear power programme”.

Kakodkar is also in charge of the Atomic Energy Commission [AEC] that was receiving reports from the DAE about uranium related developments. The CAG has now urged the Government to review “the existing arrangement of the same incumbent holding the posts of both Secretary DAE and Chairman AEC,” according to the newspaper.

But while all this is true, the Prime Minister and the Union Cabinet are equally, if not more, answerable. Why is it that this basic information of uranium supplies was not sought and analysed and understood by these policymakers who rushed to tie India into a strategic alliance with the US for reasons still not fully understood by the nation? Why is it that the assessment by scientists who had held top positions in Government was not placed on board, discussed and acted upon? Why is it that suggestions to examine the uranium and thorium supplies available to this country, were not taken on board by the Government and the Prime Minister who heads the atomic energy department? Why is it that the Congress, including its president Sonia Gandhi who made several statements on this issue, did not bother to ascertain the facts before signing a deal that can only be described as being against the interests of India? And then comes a question that has sinister implications: is it that they all knew the position but hid it from the country because they wanted to create and project an artificial shortage to pursue the deal that Manmohan Singh and his party converted into a prestige issue?

Foreign policy experts outside the Government could have told the MEA and the Congress, of course, that the deal might not be able to get off the ground under the new administration. And while Manmohan Singh might take pride in having saved his prestige, recession and US President Barack Obama’s well known commitment to non proliferation appear to have made this deal a non starter. This Government has done incalculable harm to India’s relations with the developing world. From being perceived as a trusted ally it is regarded with suspicion, and its voice has lost the strength and power it could have had in the wider neighbourhood.

The CAG report must be taken to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for a statement and a full explanation. The attempt to pass the blame onto the DAE door is tempting, but in the final analysis the politicians in charge have to be answerable. If they knew, they are culpable; if they did not, their ignorance is unpardonable.

The nuclear deal might become the Congress’ second “Bofors”, for lies and subterfuge do acquire a tendency to haunt.


If I remember correctly, at one time, Dr Manmohan Singh was a Member of the AEC. So, I am sure he was very well aware of the facts and the reasons why Nat U exploration was lagging behind.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Arun_S » 05 Mar 2009 22:51

The pinnacle of media that was exposing MM Singh and Kakodkar under able journalistic leadership of M.J Akbar and Seema Mustafa was destroyed under order by Sonia Gandhi; that one act almost completely removed the most informed and vocal pro-India position in Indian media that is now almost completely legally (and openly) owned and controlled by foriegn investments.

FYI in USA ~2004 all public radio stations were acquired by a listed company and within a year that public company was acquired by a private investment company (for onlee a few billion $). Talk to anyone who keeps track of this and they all know that it was onlee a small investment by National Security Agency.

Mad-em Sonia ki Jai-Ho.
Making the whole of India drunken 'slum-dogs' that chases crumbs thrown at it by foriegn massa, to construct its mental values and selfworth.

The nuclear deal might become the Congress’ second “Bofors”, for lies and subterfuge do acquire a tendency to haunt.

IMHO that wish is a long shot. Rebied dog it will never drink water, it sees imaginary water everywhere.

Carry on minister... . . . .

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4521
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby putnanja » 06 Mar 2009 03:22

Reprocessing request is the first test of nuclear deal under Obama - Siddharth Varadarajan

India has formally asked the United States to negotiate the “arrangements and procedures” under which American spent nuclear fuel will be reprocessed in the country, presenting the Obama administration with its first test of how committed it is to the India-U.S. nuclear agreement.

The request was made last month, senior officials told The Hindu.
...
...
Last January, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar explicitly told a delegation of the U.S.-India Business Council — which included many representatives of the American nuclear industry — that there would be no reactor purchases without reprocessing.

Shortly after that meeting, Ted Jones of the USIBC told the Washington Post that Dr. Kakodkar had said commercial ties could commence “only after talks about reprocessing rights are concluded.”

....
...
Given the negative experience of Tarapur, where a vast acreage of spent fuel has accumulated following Washington’s decades-long refusal to endorse reprocessing, the DAE is unwilling to accept any future ambiguity in this regard, especially when the U.S. is looking to sell several thousand megawatts worth of reactor capacity to India.

Since Russian and French reactor exports to India come bundled with reprocessing consent, Washington’s failure to conclude an agreement on reprocessing arrangements and procedures to the DAE’s satisfaction would be tantamount to freezing U.S. vendors out a market that the U.S. itself was instrumental in reopening.
...

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 07 Mar 2009 18:11

Koodankulam to have eight reactors: NPCIL Chairman
"though I cannot say anything now, I think the number of reactors at Koodankulam will touch eight, though inter- governmental agreement between India and Russia was only for six reactors." The Jaitapur unit in Maharastra would have six French nuclear reactors with 1,650 MW capacity each, and Areva, a French nuclear power company, would be the supplier, he added.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 07 Mar 2009 18:51

Arun_S wrote:The pinnacle of media that was exposing MM Singh and Kakodkar under able journalistic leadership of M.J Akbar and Seema Mustafa was destroyed under order by Sonia Gandhi; that one act almost completely removed the most informed and vocal pro-India position in Indian media that is now almost completely legally (and openly) owned and controlled by foriegn investments.

FYI in USA ~2004 all public radio stations were acquired by a listed company and within a year that public company was acquired by a private investment company (for onlee a few billion $). Talk to anyone who keeps track of this and they all know that it was onlee a small investment by National Security Agency.

Mad-em Sonia ki Jai-Ho.
Making the whole of India drunken 'slum-dogs' that chases crumbs thrown at it by foriegn massa, to construct its mental values and selfworth.

The nuclear deal might become the Congress’ second “Bofors”, for lies and subterfuge do acquire a tendency to haunt.

IMHO that wish is a long shot. Rebied dog it will never drink water, it sees imaginary water everywhere.

Carry on minister... . . . .



I'd hardly lump Seema Mustafa in with MJ Akbar as an enlightened opposition. She's another Islamically-motivated type. She only cares about her ethnically-formed outlook.
I saw her scorn Obama as soon as she found out he appointed Rahm Emmanuel.
She has sectarianism written all over her.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Arun_S » 08 Mar 2009 11:00

The following two articles were printed in latest Indian Defense Review magazine (Lancer Publishers), these articles are currently hosted by India Research Foundation as PDF file.

Shourya / Sagarika Missile

and

Way To A Credible Nuclear Deterrent

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 08 Mar 2009 19:01

Australia to quadruple mining of uranium to step up export
Rann, however, sounded non-committal about Australia reversing its decision not to supply uranium to India, but at the same time said the issue would be discussed by Rudd during his visit to New Delhi, expected to take place later this year.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 08 Mar 2009 19:08

Kudos to Dr. Anil Kakodar and his negotiation team

India and the Additional Protocol
In a nutshell, the Indian additional protocol limits the provision of additional information to just nuclear exports from India and grants no extra physical access to the IAEA. Thus, none of the model protocol’s burdensome reporting requirements on nuclear installations and activities, mining, reprocessing and enrichment within the country will apply. Since domestic activities have been kept entirely out of the AP’s purview, the model protocol’s provisions for intrusive ‘complementary access’ and environmental sampling have also been excluded. In its safeguards agreement, India committed itself to allowing the IAEA access to specified civilian facilities where imported nuclear fuel was being used. All the AP adds to this obligation is a commitment to provide IAEA inspectors multiple-entry visas and to allow the IAEA “free communications … including attended and unattended transmission of information generated by Agency containment and/or surveillance or measurement devices” which will already be put in place in India’s safeguarded facilities.
Like the ‘India-specific’ safeguards agreement, the Indian Additional Protocol bears little resemblance to the standard protocols in force for NNWS. More significantly, it firmly establishes the principle that non-safeguarded nuclear activities taking place inside India are no longer of any proliferation concern to the international community.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby p_saggu » 08 Mar 2009 22:45

Arun_S wrote:The following two articles were printed in latest Indian Defense Review magazine PDF file.

Shourya / Sagarika Missile

and

Way To A Credible Nuclear Deterrent


These links are not working on my computer. Anyone else facing a similar problem?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby RajeshA » 08 Mar 2009 23:07

Gerard wrote:Kudos to Dr. Anil Kakodar and his negotiation team

India and the Additional Protocol
In a nutshell, the Indian additional protocol limits the provision of additional information to just nuclear exports from India and grants no extra physical access to the IAEA. Thus, none of the model protocol’s burdensome reporting requirements on nuclear installations and activities, mining, reprocessing and enrichment within the country will apply. Since domestic activities have been kept entirely out of the AP’s purview, the model protocol’s provisions for intrusive ‘complementary access’ and environmental sampling have also been excluded. In its safeguards agreement, India committed itself to allowing the IAEA access to specified civilian facilities where imported nuclear fuel was being used. All the AP adds to this obligation is a commitment to provide IAEA inspectors multiple-entry visas and to allow the IAEA “free communications … including attended and unattended transmission of information generated by Agency containment and/or surveillance or measurement devices” which will already be put in place in India’s safeguarded facilities.
Like the ‘India-specific’ safeguards agreement, the Indian Additional Protocol bears little resemblance to the standard protocols in force for NNWS. More significantly, it firmly establishes the principle that non-safeguarded nuclear activities taking place inside India are no longer of any proliferation concern to the international community.


I second that!

At least this babu is trying to protect Indian flanks!

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 08 Mar 2009 23:20

He is no mere babu!

Smiling Buddha: 1974
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html

Instead of fabricating the core as two hemispheres as was done during the Manhattan Project, Soni and Kakodkar designed the core to be made in a number of slices (probably six) that stacked to form a sphere.
The device was assembled in a hut 40 m from the shaft. Assembly began on 13 May with a team made up of Soni, Kakodkar, Iyengar, Venkatesan and Balakrishnan.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby ramana » 09 Mar 2009 02:17

Gerard, those slices bring in instability due to non homogeneity.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby negi » 09 Mar 2009 04:15

^ Sire can you throw more light on this. I remember Arunji had raised a similar concern about the core fabrication.I expect open source gyaan onlee.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 09 Mar 2009 04:33

ramana wrote:Gerard, those slices bring in instability due to non homogeneity.


But it allowed them to overcome problems with casting and machining larger amounts of Pu.
An ingenious workaround for the time.

Some non-homogeneity was present in the very first US design (due to the Pu plug and hemispheres). Likewise with later composite pits of HEU and Pu. Even modern sealed pits have a tube to the outside container with DT boost gas.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7009
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Anujan » 09 Mar 2009 05:08

Gerard wrote:But it allowed them to overcome problems with casting and machining larger amounts of Pu. An ingenious workaround for the time.

It is not only a question of casting and machining a larger quantity of Pu but also understanding the physics behind the detonation and compression of Pu.

The first issue is that a gun-type device wont work for a Pu-bum. (smashing two hemispheres cannot be done faster than the speed of initiation of Pu, which pushes the hemisphere away and the bum becomes a dud).

So idea no 1, is to have slices of Pu and bring them together with explosives. Now comes the problem. How to convert the convex shockwave to a concave shockwave to bring the pieces together efficiently and quickly ?

Let me produce some handwavium:

Assuming you have several pieces like this: (> and ((> is one piece with explosive lens, "o" is the detonator, giving a piece like this o((> now the shockwave reaches the point in the Pu piece directly opposite to the detonator first, before reaching the other points, so after detonation, the piece looks somewhat like this |> (chapta opposite to the detonation point in the center), before it flies off towards to center of the bum to meet other pieces flying in. Somewhat like a EFP, where a copper piece like ( becomes a projectile like > because of the shockwave reaching the center first. Useful against tanks, bad in a bum.

Idea no 2. Have 2 layers of explosives, a "slow" explosive, followed by a fast explosive like this o| ((>. The shockwaves travel through the slow explosive, reach the outside of the "fast" explosive initiating detonation *at every point* (more or less at the same time) in the fast explosive, shaping the shockwave. making the piece fly without deforming it much. Generalize to several layers of slowest, slower, slow, fast, faster, fastest layer of explosives. Problem is that you need huge heavy lenses (first massa design had 3 tons of it IIRc).

All this is bad, if you need to use boost gas or need to miniaturize. The holy grail of designs is to use a hollow sphere of Pu (interior filled with boost gas). The above jugaad wont work, it will simply shear away pieces of Pu and wont produce a uniform detonation across the surface of a sphere (small pieces flying around gives some tolerance against irregularities).

Now comes idea no 3: Use a elliptical "slow" explosive. Underneath the explosive, use a ellipitical metal with varying thickness. Initiate detonation at two ends of the ellipse, the metal because of varying thickness becomes a sphere when it flies across the airgap. Inside you have a spherical Pu, with spherical explosive, the metal hits the explosive and initiates detonation at every point simultaneously.

But to use idea no 3, we need simulation, alloy techniques, manufacturing techniques to perfect the metal flying across a airgap....

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Sanatanan » 09 Mar 2009 08:12

Anujan wrote:. . .

Now comes idea no 3: Use a elliptical "slow" explosive. Underneath the explosive, use a ellipitical metal with varying thickness. Initiate detonation at two ends of the ellipse, the metal because of varying thickness becomes a sphere when it flies across the airgap. Inside you have a spherical Pu, with spherical explosive, the metal hits the explosive and initiates detonation at every point simultaneously.

But to use idea no 3, we need simulation, alloy techniques, manufacturing techniques to perfect the metal flying across a airgap....


Is this where a high-specification CNC Triple Axis Turning/Milling Machine (so dearly sought after in the Deal, on the plea that it is required for "civil" npps) comes in?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Arun_S » 09 Mar 2009 09:36

Gerard wrote:
ramana wrote:Gerard, those slices bring in instability due to non homogeneity.


But it allowed them to overcome problems with casting and machining larger amounts of Pu.
An ingenious workaround for the time.

Some non-homogeneity was present in the very first US design (due to the Pu plug and hemispheres). Likewise with later composite pits of HEU and Pu. Even modern sealed pits have a tube to the outside container with DT boost gas.

Surely one will realize that if non-homogeneity is unavoidable, one would design that along an axis that will cause minimum instability and thus minimum impact on the yield. I.e. along the line going through center of the sphere.

The stacked slices to form a sphere is the worst possible plane for non-homogeneity and instability, w.r.t the implosion shockwave propagation and the detrimental consequence on compression uniformity; IIRC the only instance amongst all nuclear powers. Not surprisingly the Pok-I performed much below design yield.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby ramana » 09 Mar 2009 10:48

Lets not go there. No more discussion on this. Thanks, ramana

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 10 Mar 2009 03:57


abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby abhik » 10 Mar 2009 17:18

p_saggu wrote:
Arun_S wrote:The following two articles were printed in latest Indian Defense Review magazine PDF file.

Shourya / Sagarika Missile

and

Way To A Credible Nuclear Deterrent


These links are not working on my computer. Anyone else facing a similar problem?

Same here ,please advise alternative .Really wanted to read the Shourya/Sagarika bit.

marimuthu
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 28 Mar 2005 09:17
Location: India

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby marimuthu » 10 Mar 2009 19:52

Same here ,please advise alternative .Really wanted to read the Shourya/Sagarika bit.


Download here

http://ifile.it/0fnx9lc

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 12 Mar 2009 04:19


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Mar 2009 04:20

The real question is it ready to agree to what India is asking for?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Mar 2009 06:15

ramana wrote:The real question is it ready to agree to what India is asking for?


Follow this:

"I think there was a bit of a discussion on the additional protocol that was just worked out with the IAEA," Wood said.


A bit? IF they stick to a "bit", then India can sleep relatively well.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 14 Mar 2009 17:32

Bhel may team up with Bharat Forge, Areva in new venture
“For nuclear forgings, we may join Areva and Bharat Forge. These two companies have already signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to form a joint venture. Instead of forming a separate venture, we may join them. We are in talks with them and they are also very keen on Bhel’s participation,” Bhel chairman & managing director K Ravi Kumar told ET. The company plans to invest around Rs 500 crore in its forging and casting business.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 15 Mar 2009 19:14


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Arun_S » 15 Mar 2009 21:35

marimuthu wrote:
Same here ,please advise alternative .Really wanted to read the Shourya/Sagarika bit.


Download here

http://ifile.it/0fnx9lc


Cross posting from Missiles thread:
Arun_S wrote:Here is the file on Nuclear Deterrent
Way To A Credible Deterrent- Rev 3C2.pdf

And the Shourya/Sagarika Missile
Shourya_missile_article_for_IDR-rev3A1a_03Jan09 Final.pdf

Feedback/critique welcome.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Mar 2009 19:04

Here is the file on Nuclear Deterrent
Way To A Credible Deterrent- Rev 3C2.pdf

And the Shourya/Sagarika Missile
Shourya_missile_article_for_IDR-rev3A1a_03Jan09 Final.pdf

Feedback/critique welcome.


I am having a tough time downloading these articles - for whatever reason/s.

IF someone could email them to me at indicgroup at netscape dot net I would appreciate it.

TIA.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby John Snow » 16 Mar 2009 19:52

Aahh Those damned CNC machines

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Sanatanan » 16 Mar 2009 20:45

NRao wrote:
I am having a tough time downloading these articles - for whatever reason/s.

IF someone could email them to me at indicgroup at netscape dot net I would appreciate it.



Email sent with the two files attached as requested (I am not quite sure whther the files I sent have the same Revision numbers as quoted in your post).

shynee
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 21 Oct 2003 11:31
Location: US

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby shynee » 16 Mar 2009 21:46

How the CPM might de-nuke India - C. Raja Mohan

Posted: Mar 16, 2009 at 1726 hrs IST

The CPM manifesto, released on Monday, presents a reheated version of its ideological tirade against the Indo-US civil nuclear initiative.

It makes no mention, however, of the latest nuclear agreements that India has signed with France and Russia. That Paris and Moscow would not have resumed nuclear exports to India without the deal with Washington is, of course, a factoid that the CPM would want to simply ignore.

Buried in its ideological tirade against the Indo-US partnership in CPM's manifesto is a little nuclear nugget that deserves wider debate.
The CPM says it will press the next Government to strive for a ‘denuclearised environment in South Asia’!

That New Delhi must get rid of its nuclear weapons in a purely South Asian framework is a proposition that no mainstream Indian political formation has ever supported. The national consensus has always been in favour of total elimination of nuclear weapons in a non-discriminatory global framework. Put simply, India will not give up its nuclear weapons so long as China, US and other great powers have them.

Those who know the CPM will not be shocked to find that the party wants to perpetuate a permanent nuclear imbalance between China and India. To its credit, the CPM has been consistent in its refusal to criticise the Chinese nuclear weapons programme, even when it denounced India's nuclear tests in May 1998.

Less known, however, is the fact that CPM's fantasy for regional nuclear disarmament in South Asia is shared fully by the American non-proliferation hawks who want to 'cap, roll back and eliminate' India's nuclear weapons programme. When the 'non-pro' lobby settles down in the Obama Administration, it knows whom to call on in the putative Third Front to revive their old anti-India nuclear agenda -- the CPM.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Vipul » 16 Mar 2009 22:13

Followers of a party and its ideology is overtly and covertly anti-national and they get to fight elections and even be King-makers.This can happen only in India.:evil:

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Satya_anveshi » 17 Mar 2009 08:57

Meanwhile, Toilet is reporting as:

CPM manifesto threatens to scrap nuclear deal

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21163
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Mar 2009 14:01

The latest Frontline has an AG Noorani review "Nuclear Drunks",of two books which throw immense light on the Reagan-Gorbachov talks on nuclear disarmament.Accoridng to the authors,we were just "two minutes" away from a dela that would've seen a "total nuclear disarmament".sadly,arch neo-con,Richard Perle,sabotaged the deal by inisting that Star Wars technology should not be confined only to the lab and tested in space.Gorbachov couldn't agree to this and an historic opportunity was lost.The article must be red in full,especially the exchange of words between Reagan and Gorbachov,which shows how close a deal was,sabotaged by Perle.

The time has now come round again when a deal bewteen Obama and Medvedev can be made at reducing nuclear warheads and delivery systems.Such a deal is required ,as without it,a host of nations have nuclear weapons ambitions and without any sign from the two nuclear powers who have approx. 90% of all the world's nukes,talk of N-disarmament is meaningless.

Here are some excerpts from the review of the two books,
Richard Rhodes' "Arsenals of Folly" and "The Atomic Bomb and the origins of the Cold War",by Campbell Craig and Sergey Radchenko.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 608000.htm

ADDRESSING the United Nations General Assembly on June 9, 1988, Rajiv Gandhi appealed: “Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million; the end of life as we know it on our planet earth. We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness.” A decade later, India became a nuclear weapon state. Not that he was against that. But he made a last-minute plea for sanity. Richard Rhodes is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. The present work is one of the most important works on the subject that has appeared in the last few years. It shows up the nuclear hawks for what they are – nuclear drunks who worship nuclear weapons and become their prisoner. The book is based on primary source material and is a model of rigorous analysis


History will never forgive President Harry Truman for his crime in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. He would not have done so on any target in Europe. Mankind owes an immense debt to President John F. Kennedy for keeping his head during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.


The U.S. and Russia have, between them, 90 per cent of the 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The 1991 START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) expires at the end of 2009. It bound both powers to halve their nuclear stockpiles from the previous total of 10,000 warheads to 5,000 warheads each. In May 2002, they signed the Moscow Treaty, which committed them to further reducing the number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads on each side to no more than 1,700-2,200 warheads by 2012. The provision for “operationally deployed warheads” inserted in the text by U.S. negotiators, despite Russian objections, allowed the sides to stockpile dismantled warheads instead of destroying them, from START.

In 2002, George W. Bush abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union. It banned deploying national missile defence systems and guaranteed that neither side would be tempted to launch a nuclear attack against the other under the cover of a missile shield. The U.S.’ withdrawal from the treaty opened the way for it to build a global anti-missile system. Russia says that to agree to radical cuts in its nuclear arsenals while the U.S. still pursues its missile shield would amount to unilateral disarmament.

Vladimir Radyuhin reported that “the [Barack] Obama administration has leaked plans to push for an 80 per cent cut in nuclear arsenals compared with the START level. Washington is yet to send formal proposals to Moscow, but the former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, is reported to have visited Russia in December on a secret mission to try and win President Dmitry Medvedev’s support for Mr. Obama’s proposal for the U.S. and Russia to cut their nuclear arsenals to 1,000 warheads on each side” (The Hindu, February 9, 2009). The NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference will be held next year.



By far the most eloquent and constructive contribution came from the highly respected Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, in an article in the same daily on February 17, 2009, entitled “A recipe for survival”. He called for the ratification of the CTBT, negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, a successor to the START Treaty with cuts to 1,000 or even 500 warheads on each side. Unless the NPT Powers keep their word, they have no right to preach to India or any other country.




It was learnt later that Reagan had consulted the neo-con Richard Perle. His biographer recorded: “The President first looked at Perle. ‘Can we carry out research under the restraints the Soviets are proposing?’ Perle’s mouth was dry; he felt short of breath. Reagan was asking him for a reason. If he said yes, it gave Reagan cover with the conservatives to confine SDI to the laboratory (‘Richard Perle assures me …’). If he said no, he would be arguing against Shultz. But his view was an unequivocal no. ‘Mr. President, we cannot conduct the research under the terms he’s proposing. It will effectively kill SDI.’

“The President paused and weighed this, and then turned to Nitze and Shultz. They both counselled him to accept the language proposed by Gorbachev, and suggested that they would worry about whether research could be conducted in the laboratory later. Perle stared hard at Reagan. What was he going to do?”

There was however, much more to it. Perle was against any accord, whatever. Speaking in Munich in late January 1987, not long before he resigned as Assistant Secretary of Defence, Perle ridiculed the idea of a nuclear-free world as “foolishness” that was “in no way mitigated by the conditions that Western statesmen routinely attach to its achievement in order to avoid dismissing the idea as the empty propaganda that it is”. Perle disguised his ex-cathedra censure of nuclear abolition as a deconstruction of Gorbachev’s surprising proposals at Reykjavik, but his reference to “Western statesmen” makes it clear that he also meant to condemn Reagan’s dream. It is the advice of such a small man that wrecked Reykjavik.

These proceedings demonstrate that given the will, the idea of a nuclear weapons-free world is realisable.



“For a few minutes on August 6, 1945, and then again on August 9, the United States inflicted upon the residents of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the most brutal acts of war in recorded history…. Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as the worst atrocities ever committed in the history of warfare. Hitler’s and Stalin’s genocides killed far more, but they were not military operations. The worst of the conventional bombing attacks earlier in the War – Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo – took far longer to achieve their grim toll, as did the awful scorched earth campaigns of Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe or Japan on the coast of China. Even the suicidal trench battles of the First World War in places like Verdun, Paschendale and the Somme occurred over greater expanses of time than the atomic bombings, and the victims of these catastrophes were armed soldiers who had at least some volition over their fate.”

Why did Truman commit this outrage? Because “Truman wanted not only a Japanese surrender, he, together with his new secretary of state James Byrnes, wanted a quick Japanese surrender. By dropping a second bomb immediately, he did no damage to the first objective – a Japanese surrender before November was just as foreseeable with a bomb dropped on the ninth as with one dropped on, say, the fourteenth – but substantially enhanced the chances of the second... we can regard Hiroshima in the final American strike of the Second World War, and Nagasaki, as its first strike in the Cold War.”

The Bomb took centre stage in the history of the origins of the Cold War. Three consequences followed. Stalin’s decision to build the bomb; the U.S.’ discovery of Soviet espionage; and new intractable problems for achieving a just international order. The Bomb could ensure peace only if it was put under international control. “The chances of the United States, not to mention the Soviet Union, accepting such an arrangement were zero. In the atomic age, there is no middle ground: the choice is either sovereignty or international government. The Soviet Union and the United States chose the former. The Cold War was on.”


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby vsudhir » 17 Mar 2009 20:42

Just like 'secular' and 'socialist' were quietly slipped in through before the word 'Republic' into the preamble of the Indian constitution, I guess, the word 'Nuclear Weapons State' needs to be similarly slipped in through.

One cannot form a political party in India without swearing to the idea of a socialist India because it is in the constitution. Similarly the CPM can have its registration withdrawn if it does not swear by the idea of a 'nuclear weapons state India', I'm thinking....

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 20 Mar 2009 02:28


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 20 Mar 2009 02:30


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Gerard » 21 Mar 2009 05:18


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion

Postby Sanatanan » 21 Mar 2009 11:38


With global prices of nuclear fuel and equipment softening following the current economic slowdown, India is all set to scale up the nuclear energy sector in the country, the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported.

"The current economic slowdown has turned to India's advantage as the cost of nuclear fuel and equipment have come down considerably.

"We have already started talking to a number of international vendors for setting up high-energy efficiency nuclear energy plants in the country," Prime Minister's Special envoy on Climate Change Shyam Saran said recently at a function here.



With Rupee hovering at and above 50 per US$, and possiblity of Re devaluation loomig ahead?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests