India-US Nuclear Deal continued

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 Dec 2006 08:28

Shiv,

Here is the way I see it.

India has toiled hard to get what she wants.
She has been upfront in most cases - unlike others
She has stated the reasons she wants what she wants: strat, MCD because of China and Pakistan, and, FBR for civilian use (granted it is very simple). But, these are very reasonable reasons and very reasonable goals
In the field of strats, India is reactive. IMHO, ANYONE who wants to cap Indian fissile material has only to cap that of China and Pakistan - I feel that is not much to ask for (IIRC Hyde has something to that effect)
India has always believed in Universal Disarmament - not regional, not unilateral. (BTW, cap fissile material (nuke bombs) means not just quantity, but quality too)
India, if at all, has followed the spirit of all agreements better than those nations who have signed them.

So, what is changing is that they are neglecting to acknowledge all these (and there are probably some more) and they are by painting a picture where India has not contributed and in the future cannot be trusted to contribute. All these years it did not matter - India was working (on FBR, etc) in a vacuum. Now, that are trying to get into the maidan, it matters. FBR techs need to be protected, we need lawyers, IP related issues - it is just not India that can help Iran, what if a US inspectors learns something from India and sends that info to Japan?

Else follow the Indian model: sell us what WE want, we will do the rest. You come here and count the number of atoms of Uranium, PU, etc and scoot.

It is meant to be very simple, no 420, etc. Indian politicians will never protect this tech in the long run - someone will sell it - if given that chance. Better to let the techies drive - by keeping it simple and open.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Dec 2006 08:36

But, just on that 0.00005% outside possibility that India drifts towards a "subvert-Pax-Americana" scenario, the Hyde Act has those onerous provisions, to be invoked if necessary.


Yes folks. The US congress is in the business of taking care of that 10,000th fraction of that possibility. Don’t you see how smart they are. All you guys, who do not understand this are whiners and not realistic enough.

The Hyde act is not about US proliferation goals and their next best attempt short of being able to sign India as an official non-NWS in the NPT. Do not read the act for what it is, It is only pipe dreams of the US.

That's not a problem at all.

Since India is not going to be able to switch civilian and military plants, the question of "loose and flexible" guidelines is immaterial.


Sure no problem – what are a couple of statements from a few ministers and officials. while the government (Anand Sharma, Dr. Alexander and the principal negotiators) were assuring the opposition and the press with backgrounder statements that do not worry India will be getting same status and safeguards as a nuclear weapons state, the Hyde act specifically does the reverse.

Your first post says IAEA agreement guidelines are negotiable – when the Hyde act already demands non-NWS type of guidelines and when this is pointed out, you hide behind the word that these are only guidelines. The Hyde bill has additional safeguards in addition to the IAEA’s and ofcourse you conveniently do not respond to that because you cannot. The opposition to this deal by the BJP did not start today, it started with M2, when MMS agreed to perpetual safeguards. The opposition wants nothing less than what was agreed to with China. J18 provided some hope but Since M2, It has been a slippery slope for India.

But do not worry folks, in the real world, India will have all the flexibility. Realists know, how it all works. H&D guys are riling away for nothing at all. Valkan, You are on a slippery slope, just like this deal and cannot hold your argument and hence resort to words line whining, H&D. When on a loosing wicket, crying foul will not get you anywhere.

The model guideline is being suggested solely to ensure that India cannot cite national security reasons to pull civilian plants into military sphere in the future. Nothing more.


We should believe you more than the words in the Hyde act?

The US has accepted India as a de-facto nuclear weapon state, all the protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your definition of de-facto status is wrong. It could have been de-facto if it was just J18 as it allowed both sides to interpret things differently but M2 and now the Hyde act blow the hole. Anyone claiming de-facto NWS status with the Hyde act in place should get his head checked.

Secondly, you don't play all your cards at once.

Yes, you wait till the other party has been through dozens of testimonies, deliberated on an act in the open with the highest officials, provided you with a draft of 123 (which the US would write in India’s favor?) and then at just the opportune time produce the Brahmastra to negate all the work done by the other side, because your card would suddenly be so heavy that the other side will not be able to refuse it. See how smart and realistic, we are.

The fact that India can designate any future plant as military plant, outside the jurisdiction of IAEA safeguards, is loose and flexible enough for all practical purposes.

You are wrong again. All future FBR would be civilian, no choice in the matter.

Obviously, there is ALWAYS going to be an exit clause in any agreement. Even NPT has one,- the "six months notice" clause.

This is where Indian freedom in negotiations come into picture.


Yes, this is the best deal we ever negotiated. If we do not like it in the future then, we are free to walk out. See, how free we are? BTW: While India is under the agreement in the form of an “allyâ€

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 23 Dec 2006 10:25

deleted
Last edited by Rye on 23 Dec 2006 11:42, edited 1 time in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 23 Dec 2006 11:04

ShauryaT wrote:
You are wrong again. All future FBR would be civilian, no choice in the matter.


is that part of the separation plan? ... I have lost track ... I seem to recall that there was flexibility in future designations ...

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Postby Victor » 23 Dec 2006 12:18

You are wrong again. All future FBR would be civilian, no choice in the matter.


Huh? Everybody just said we will not allow any inspections on our FBRs. That one item should be THE deal killer right there. They are the crown jewels--the ONLY thing unkil is after. Every other item is a feint.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 23 Dec 2006 12:56

whats the point of breeding more Pu just for civilian purposes, unless its warranted to generated some real good amount for our AThBR, and further to ADS. From based on guys here and other links, we would be needing Pus, just enough to kick start the Th232->fissile Th233.. [of course, we could think of Th233 thermo nukes!, and we should carry one piggy backed on our moon mission, and exploded it beyond that region to test :wink: , and all those mil specific things we can do],..

sure,, uncle is not just after the nu materials, but more into whats eggzactly is our plans and intentions.. you see, our strategic n security lies in such fear, and we should maintain that., and thats is the main deterrence value that we declared since Vajpayee's only strategic remark, to say " we have the bomb in our hands now", rather extemporaneously he could said a shiare., but ever since that.. amriks are after, our know how, whatever peanuts that may be.

keep them guessing.. and still maintain that edge, with a secret deterrence that hedges even the mighty ooosa!

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Dec 2006 21:48

Alok_N wrote:ShauryaT wrote:
You are wrong again. All future FBR would be civilian, no choice in the matter.


is that part of the separation plan? ... I have lost track ... I seem to recall that there was flexibility in future designations ...


Technically still Yes, maybe. There is some greyish matter here. I am going by sevaral Burns interviews and also raised in one of the earlier threads on BR with responses from Ramana and Arun_S (if my memory serves me) . MMS has never really squared away the issue. Burns has used the words all future FBR or all future cvilian FBR's under safeguards alternatively making the exact determination difficult.

A realistc way to read between the lines is, When we read - Atoms for War by Ashley Tellis in combination with the commitment to join FMCT soon, it becomes clear, why all future FBR would be civilian - as any plutonium for weapons use out of future FBR is atleast 20-30 years away. With FMCT in place in that time frame, there would be no choice on future FBR being non-civilian and hence no flexiblity on the issue.

Once FMCT is in place all future reactors made not just FBR would have to be designated as civilian and hence under automatic perpetual safeguards? True?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Dec 2006 22:02

Victor wrote:Huh? Everybody just said we will not allow any inspections on our FBRs. That one item should be THE deal killer right there. They are the crown jewels--the ONLY thing unkil is after. Every other item is a feint.
The Test and Prototypes (under development/construction) are excluded. By the time any other commercial grade FBR's are in place, FMCT would be in effect.

India's protestations not withstanding the US already has a draft in place for FMCT.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 23 Dec 2006 22:20

ShauryaT wrote:Technically still Yes, maybe. There is some greyish matter here.


I thought that the separation plan was made public ... I'll try to dig it up ... where does the grey come in?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Dec 2006 23:54

From statements like this.

Anil Kakodkar in the Hindu.

So the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) under construction at Kalpakkam and the Fast Breeder Reactors will not come under safeguards?

No. The PFBR will not come. The PFBR is a proto-type. Why should it go under safeguards? When technology becomes mature, it is a different story. The point is all these decisions will be taken at the appropriate time and there is no need to decide it today.

From the Rice Testiomny:

Chairman LUGAR. What reason did India give for not declaring its extant 40 MWth Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) to be civilian?

Secretary RICE. We cannot speak for the Government of India, of course, but in our discussions Indian officials argued that since the FBTR was still in the experimental stage, India not in a position to accept safeguards on the reactor at this time.

Chairman LUGAR. What reason did India give for not declaring the 500 MWe fast breeder reactor it currently has under construction to be part of its civilian program?

Secretary RICE. The reactor is not yet complete. India stated that it was not in a position to place reactors which it considers experimental under safeguards. India committed to placing all future civil power and breeder reactors under safeguards.

There is a statement on the separation by GoI and it can be twisted either way. I believe, the way to read "civilian" is with the proposed FMCT. When statements emerge that upto 90% of the Indian program would be under safe guards, the US is interpreting that in light of the proposed FMCT.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 24 Dec 2006 00:17

The initial US stance was *immediate* separation of civilian and military reactors, with all FBRs in the civilian list, in exchage for India being part of the GNEP with reprocessing rights.

The GoI then negotiated this down to 4 FBRs under military designation and all future FBRs under the civilian list. This is the current state of affairs, IIRC. The argument was that these 4 would be enough for India's strategic program --- there was no talk of protecting the IP of Indian scientists. However, from Dr. AK's statements above, all such placing FBRs under international safeguards will only happen when Indian FBR technology is mature.

It is the latter plan that lead to statements by the GOTUS that, *in the future* more than 90% of all Indian nuclear plants would be under international scrutiny, and to MMS and Co. stating that they are willing to sign up for the FMCT "along with everyone else". Just trying to recollect the sequence of events as they happened.
Last edited by Rye on 24 Dec 2006 01:32, edited 1 time in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 24 Dec 2006 00:58

boss, the separation plan is India's plan, not Basmati's plan ...

but hey, let's be careful and start running cause the sky is surely gonna fall someday ...

ShauryaT wrote: India committed to placing all future civil power and breeder reactors under safeguards.


bold font does not change logic ... of course, India will place future civilian reactors under safeguards ... however, it is up to India what to designate as civilian ...

sigh ...

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 24 Dec 2006 01:38

Alok_N wrote:

bold font does not change logic ... of course, India will place future civilian reactors under safeguards ... however, it is up to India what to designate as civilian ...


That is my recollection too...would like point out that if India signs up to the FMCT, then it would be signing up to put all future FBRs in the civilian list, since the US claim is that FBRs are a major source of fissile material. However, I am also recollecting now that the GoI has only said that it will "work with the international community to bring the FMCT into force". I don't think that can be interpreted as the GoI is ready to sign up for the FMCT -- it just means what it says "GoI will work towards a FMCT with everyone else"....just my one paisa.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 24 Dec 2006 03:33

yup, GoI will work towards FMCT, universal nuke disarmament and converting packee army into decent human beings ...

given those 3 choices, working on FMCT does seem like the easiest of the lot ... :)

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

Postby Gerard » 24 Dec 2006 04:19

Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty
In July 2004, the Bush administration announced that while the United States still supported a legally binding treaty banning production of nuclear materials for weapons—usually referred to as a fissile material cutoff treaty, or FMCT—it no longer supported including verification measures in such a treaty, as verification "would require an inspection regime so extensive that it could compromise key signatories' core national security interests and so costly that many countries will be hesitant to accept it."
The nuclear weapon states argue that the fissile cutoff should be focused on the subject identified in the 1993 UN General Assembly resolution—a verifiable ban on future production of nuclear materials for nuclear weapons. A number of non-nuclear-weapon states, however, argue that a fissile material treaty (they tend not to use the word "cutoff") should be not just a nonproliferation measure but a disarmament measure as well, limiting existing stockpiles of fissile material in addition to future production.
The additional benefit of a fissile cutoff treaty would come from extending that ban to the five nuclear weapon state parties to the NPT (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China) and the four states outside of the NPT (India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea). Extending verification to India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, in particular, bringing them at least the first step toward participation in the international nonproliferation regime, is seen by many as a crucial purpose of a cutoff agreement. Unless all or most of these states participated, a fissile cutoff would have little value.
In recent years, it has been impossible to reach consensus in the Conference on Disarmament on even beginning negotiation of a fissile cutoff, in part because several countries have indicated they would not agree to the start of negotiations on a cutoff without simultaneous agreement to start negotiations on other issues. China, for example, concerned about the implications of U.S. missile defense plans, for years linked its agreement to allow cutoff negotiations to begin to agreement to start negotiations on an agreement on prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS).
Other delegations have called for the start of negotiations on a broad multilateral agreement on nuclear disarmament.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 24 Dec 2006 04:46

Rye/Alok:

If you all remember the NPA had made some big noises on the FBR issue. Burns is on record that this was a stickler. I think the way out has been, India keeps the TFBR and PFBR out of scope, signs for FMCT in the near future and hence makes ALL future FBR's civilian and hence in scope. Since FMCT is not a done deal, the differrent emphasis in statements clouding the future status of FBR's.

So, with the signing of FMCT the question of what is civilian becomes moot?My wager is FMCT is more real becuase it is in US interests, to push for it. My 2c.

Treaty on the Cessation of Production of Fissile Material for Use in Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices (DRAFT TEXT)

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 24 Dec 2006 04:59

ShauryaT wrote:
signs for FMCT in the near future


IIRC, The GoI has always signalled its intent that it will definitely sign along with everyone else, in the near future or in the fullness of time --- however long it takes for the P-5 to come to a consensus to sign the FMCT along with India multilaterally, after which the FMCT can come into force.
Last edited by Rye on 24 Dec 2006 07:23, edited 1 time in total.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 24 Dec 2006 06:22

It is clear to me that what is needed here is some clear thinking and positive announcements from GOI. Let me help with some suggested statements, which are modeled on the fine language used in the Yoonited States in all Standard Agreements.

123.101
INDIA WILL ABIDE BY NPT*


123.102
INDIA WELCOMES FMCT2


123.103
INDIA HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED, AND WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, CTBT3


123.104
ALL INDIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES WILL BE UNDER IAEA FULL-SCOPE SAFEGUARDS...

.. WITH ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS ONLEE
4,5,6






notes:
* as a full nuclear weapon state
2: 5 days after Houristan freezes over, and almost as much as we welcome pakistanis across the LOC, and when the last fissile material has been removed from pakistan, china and britain, and Islamabad Crater has stopped smoking and Musharraf has been removed from the lamppost.

3: just like china and pakistan and the US do

4: Indian Atomic Energy Agency

5: against snooping by foreigners

6. phor ophishial vijit by babus, mantris, Czarina brinda karat etc.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 24 Dec 2006 13:57, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 24 Dec 2006 11:36

of course, India will place future civilian reactors under safeguards ... however, it is up to India what to designate as civilian ...


That is my recollection too.

Q: IF India were to reprocess, use the by product (or product) in the FBR, then would it not mean that any FBR that used the reprocessed stuff could come under safeguard (and scrutiny)?

Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Postby Sadler » 24 Dec 2006 13:33

enqyoob wrote:
notes:
* as a full nuclear weapon state
2: 5 days after Houristan freezes over, and almost as much as we welcome pakistanis across the LOC, and when the last fissile material has been removed from pakistan, china and britain, and Islamabad Crater has stopped smoking and Musharraf has been removed from the lamppost.


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6900
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Postby shyamd » 24 Dec 2006 17:59

Indian reactors gear up for a safer future
[quote]Inside the high-security Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) off Mumbai’s northern fringe, nuclear scientists are designing next-generation nuclear reactors with a target lifespan of 100 years. Apsara, the oldest research reactor, turned 50 this year and reactors worldwide usually survive 40 to 60 years.

They are also currently trying to convince atomic regulatory experts that a prototype 300 MW reactor — under design since the ’90s — can be operated, for the first time, without the mandatory protective barrier of a 1.6-km no-man’s land or radiation exclusion zone.

The site search and safety review for the prototype are currently going on.

“A 100-year lifespan is one of our reactor design objectives. It is achievable,â€

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

Postby Tilak » 24 Dec 2006 18:24



Mods,

Can we have a dedicated "Indian Nuclear Industry" thread in the "Technology & Economic Forum", for posting such news in the future..

Thanks.

Subramaniam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 19:01

Postby Subramaniam » 24 Dec 2006 21:08

whatever be the case atleast 50% of the power must develop from Indian reactors designed, built and operated. This retains local talent and expertise, enables further growth and R&D-which is what we all want.How can we fund this is the question.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 24 Dec 2006 21:47

NRao wrote:
Q: IF India were to reprocess, use the by product (or product) in the FBR, then would it not mean that any FBR that used the reprocessed stuff could come under safeguard (and scrutiny)?


If India has all the patents filed to protect its FBR IP and the reactors are all commercial grade (with newer R&D to improve the FBR designs being done on the military reactors so that patentable ideas are protected), what would be the downside to putting such FBRs under scrutiny? I don't know the answer...I am just adding to the above questions...Seems like having X% of the reactors as civilian or military is irrelevant if India can (a) protect its IP (b) have its ideas patented (c) use outside acceptance of this technology to become an NSG supplier in due course....and then generate commercial Indian spinoffs that own and operate such plants under IAEA supervision in energy-deprived parts of the world, like Africa and South America. India would be able to generate a lot of money and protect its IP simultaneously, it would appear to the untrained eye.

Seems to me that the revenue India can generate from (c) would be worth many many more times than India can generate by getting into the small arms market and becoming an arms supplier like the remaining powers.

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

Postby rocky » 24 Dec 2006 22:38

Rye wrote:If India has all the patents filed to protect its FBR IP and the reactors are all commercial grade (with newer R&D to improve the FBR designs being done on the military reactors so that patentable ideas are protected), what would be the downside to putting such FBRs under scrutiny? I don't know the answer...I am just adding to the above questions...Seems like having X% of the reactors as civilian or military is irrelevant if India can (a) protect its IP (b) have its ideas patented (c) use outside acceptance of this technology to become an NSG supplier in due course....
The idea of obtaining patents makes any sense only if:
1) There is a verifiable method to determine if the said method has already been implemented by others, elsewhere, or not
2) There is a verifiable method to determine that the patented method hasn't been stolen violating the IP and/or copyright elsewhere
3) There is a verifiable method to determine that the said violator(s) of the IP and/or copyright have been made to pay for their infringement.

In the current world order of the NWS-5 and NNWS, *ALL* of the above three are unenforceable.

Hence the idea of patenting Indian IP/technology is akin to handing over the design on a platter to the thieves.

Subramaniam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 19:01

Postby Subramaniam » 24 Dec 2006 22:47

If we cannot protect the tech developed by us under sanctions regime it is a real mockery of our scientific effort. And no govt or person responsible for such state of affirs be forgiven. Has this govt made any attempts to protect our R&D? I seriously doubt that.

Also India must be proactive and invest in Thorium mining world wide to take a large share of the pie. Albeit we have the largest known (The key is known) it doesn't mean there are hitherto unknown larger mines! No point in giving the rights to the Thugs from Australia and canada.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 24 Dec 2006 22:50

Rocky wrote:

1) There is a verifiable method to determine if the said method has already been implemented by others, elsewhere, or not
2) There is a verifiable method to determine that the patented method hasn't been stolen violating the IP and/or copyright elsewhere
3) There is a verifiable method to determine that the said violator(s) of the IP and/or copyright have been made to pay for their infringement.


The above is the domain of patent lawyers and is a solved problem, no?

Also, filing the patents is more to ensure that India does not get accused of stealing the ideas of the NWS-5. If the ideas see the light of day before their time because the GoI was stupid enough to not protect Indian IP, then we can rest assured that the competition will file patents in their own countries before we do, and then claim India is a violator.

In the current world order of the NWS-5 and NNWS, *ALL* of the above three are unenforceable.


Would it still be unenforceable if India passes its own laws ceasing all commercial activity with countries that have violated India's patents?
Wouldn't that provide us with enough leverage on the violators? Besides, if India has many years of lead time (which we do) in developing safe reactors, the rest of the P5 are going to have to spend a few more years to commercialize this technology....if we commercialize first and also work on keeping the tech. lead we have over competitors, isn't that the ideal situation?

Hey, for every patent they violate, we could take the liberty of violating one of our own. How about we violate the TRIPS and steal their pharma IP in that case? We can mirror their techniques for defending such stealing...if they are going to be dishonest, why should we remain honest and "trust" them to not steal Indian ideas


Hence the idea of patenting Indian IP/technology is akin to handing over the design on a platter to the thieves.


If this designs are "old" by the time they come into the public domain (i.e., the Indian Nuke R&D community has already improved on those ideas, and also makes sure that nuclear power plants sold elsehwere are old" technology, then they can only steal older ideas, while newer patents are in the works)....Shouldn't tech development towards commerical use be looked upon as a continuous process with different stages of the process having different aims and goals and the strategy for pushing each stage further ahead completely independent of the other?

Also, if the commercialized reactors are designed from the ground up instead of being based on prototypes, reverse engineers would be able to draw no conclusions about India's strategic program based on data derived from commerical reactors.
Last edited by Rye on 24 Dec 2006 23:07, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 24 Dec 2006 23:06

NRao wrote: IF India were to reprocess, use the by product (or product) in the FBR, then would it not mean that any FBR that used the reprocessed stuff could come under safeguard (and scrutiny)?


The above was the primary motivation for the number of thermal reactors out of scope. This would ensure that the fuel for PFBR and future reactors can be generated from the out of scope reactors.

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

Postby rocky » 24 Dec 2006 23:47

You've missed the point Rye.

When only 11 sites of all of the NWS nuclear-related sites are under non-perpetual safeguards, how is one supposed to even determine whether violation occured?

Even if somehow one gets evidence of the violation, how are you supposed to "reverse" the ill-gotten gains accrued by the violator?

Case in point - what exactly was the US capable of doing in the LLNL espionage case?

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 24 Dec 2006 23:54

Rocky wrote:
When only 11 sites of all of the NWS nuclear-related sites are under non-perpetual safeguards, how is one supposed to even determine whether violation occured?


Good point, Rocky. Tough one to get around.

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

Postby rocky » 25 Dec 2006 00:05

Actually there might be a way out, if I can interpret the IUCNA properly.

All nuclear electricity producing technology, which India wants to protect should be under *campaign-specific* safeguards only.

If we can ensure that only the fissile material and associated raw material that goes into the actual production of electricity is under such safeguards, then we can protect our IP. If I'm not wrong, I think this is somewhat similar to what Brazil does.

Is this how one can infer the agreement?

Foreign reactors - well who cares about them anyways as long as they are producing electricity cheaply and not leaking radioactive wastes into our environment.

Second important point - we must absolutely be in a position to be able to avoid another Bhopal; and if we can't, the barest minimum we can do is to hang the guilty.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 00:07

rocky wrote:When only 11 sites of all of the NWS nuclear-related sites are under non-perpetual safeguards, how is one supposed to even determine whether violation occured?
Also, let us understand the total number of reactors, among the NWS, it is about 237. Contrast this with India's 14 out of 22 in perpetual safeguards.

The new draft treaty proposed by the US espouses non-verifiable cessation of fissile material.

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

Postby rocky » 25 Dec 2006 00:10

Let me explain this further.

Make all foreign reactors classified as civilian and under full and perpetual IAEA safeguards - I think this cannot be avoided.

Do not build a single civilian reactor using our own technology.

All future reactors that India builds using Indian technology will be classified military only.

And then open those military reactors to IAEA inspections under *campaign-specific* safeguards when using foreign raw and fissile material(s)

rocky wrote:Actually there might be a way out, if I can interpret the IUCNA properly.

All nuclear electricity producing technology, which India wants to protect should be under *campaign-specific* safeguards only.

If we can ensure that only the fissile material and associated raw material that goes into the actual production of electricity is under such safeguards, then we can protect our IP. If I'm not wrong, I think this is somewhat similar to what Brazil does.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 25 Dec 2006 00:12

deleted. OT
Last edited by Rye on 25 Dec 2006 01:09, edited 2 times in total.

Subramaniam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 19:01

Postby Subramaniam » 25 Dec 2006 01:02

I think this line of thinking that IAEA ensures safety is dangerous. IAEA must be considered a hindrance to any and all Indian efforts-a stooge of P-5 and nothing more and should be dealt with as such. JMT

Subramaniam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 19:01

Postby Subramaniam » 25 Dec 2006 01:05

Rather than limiting to India all Thorium based reactors must be for exports. And should I dare say with gusto? Let us make money. Saudi Arabia wants nuke power and we would be better to give them thorium power.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 03:48

rocky wrote:Do not build a single civilian reactor using our own technology.

Once FMCT is in place - the question of a non civilian reactor does not arise. We have time, until the FMCT noose tightens.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 25 Dec 2006 05:38

ShauryaT wrote:Once FMCT is in place - the question of a non civilian reactor does not arise.


let's be realistic ... how the heck can anyone enforce an FMCT if the military reactors stay out of the inspections regime? ... if you are going to persist with this bogey, at least give it some teeth ... so, you envision that one day uncle and bear and panda will suddenly open all reactors for inspection? ... if not, then why would India do so?

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 25 Dec 2006 08:01

If India has all the patents filed to protect its FBR IP and the reactors are all commercial grade (with newer R&D to improve the FBR designs being done on the military reactors so that patentable ideas are protected), what would be the downside to putting such FBRs under scrutiny?


If you REALLY want to protect something, patenting is what you MUST avoid, since patenting makes the method obvious and unambiguous to all.

Subramaniam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 19:01

Postby Subramaniam » 25 Dec 2006 09:26

I agree with N^3 patenting IS a disaster. Sign as many deals as possible and build reactors-even if necessary for TSP.Let us make some money!
But then have we paid attention to provide for the manpower and expertise needed? I am not sure if our engineering colleges are churning out or atleast plan to churn out as many engineers as needed-not to mention other specialists. Wonder all we come up with is a Call Center economy!! :roll: :P :twisted: :x :cry:


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests