Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread

zachs · Post by **zachs** » 28 Sep 2007 04:28

Hello friends. My first post here.

Hope you don't mind mine english.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 28 Sep 2007 08:31

N-deal: Why the UPA can't wait for 6 months
September 27, 2007

What is six months in the life of an ancient nation? This will remain a tantalising question that the United Progressive Alliance government refuses to answer regarding the raison d'etre of the India-United States civil nuclear cooperation agreement.

Amidst the cacophony over the deal, the Left has made a modest suggestion. Why don't we pause, take a six-month sabbatical and revisit the deal in a chastened mood? A wide body of public opinion harbours a sense of disquiet over the deal. But the government sidetracks the issue.

It resorts to banalities like 'This is the best deal that we can get', or, 'George Bush is the friendliest US President'. Like bloodhounds, the UPA's spin doctors pounce upon the critics of the deal, ridiculing them as 'anti-American' or 'Chinese agents', 'anti-national', 'Rip Van Winkles', and so on. Jawaharlal Nehru must be turning in his grave.

Meanwhile, it is left to the American Ambassador to India, David Mulford to crack the whip. 'Time is of the essence,' he announced in Delhi on Tuesday. 'Now we must take the last steps. This involves completing the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and securing the Nuclear Suppliers Group rule change. Finally US Congress must vote once more on the 123 agreement, an agreement best accomplished by this administration in the life of this Congress.'

It is inconceivable Mulford meant what he said, namely, that certainty of an enduring commitment to the deal is lacking among US politicians. American diplomats used to say 'strategic partnership' with India enjoys bipartisan consensus in the US. Indeed, Congress passed the notorious Hyde Act with a thumping majority.

So, where is the doublespeak? Clearly, the Bush administration is in a tearing hurry. The deal's sequencing has been altered. Instead of waiting for the IAEA negotiations to conclude, Washington sought an extraordinary meeting of the NSG.

Evidently, extraneous factors have come into play. First, the deal facilitates selective handling of the question of technology transfer to India. The deal and its political message enhance the prospects of gaining waivers on existing US embargos. Such waivers, in turn, are a pre-requisite for effective participation by the US in the tender floated by India for fighter aircraft.

The tender worth anywhere up to $16 billion (about Rs 64,000 crore) will be in three stages. First, a technical commission of the UPA government will examine the compliance of the bidders' proposals with the operational requirements of the Indian Air Force. Then, the bidding planes will undergo real-time tests. And, finally, commercial terms will be evaluated. Thus, participants must make their presentations within the next six months if they are to be eligible for consideration.

As of now, American companies participating in the tender -- Boeing with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin with the F-16 -- have to make their bids within prevailing US laws embargoing military technology transfer to India. (The Indian tender covers not only the delivery of aircraft but also their licensed co-production and much else that involves the transfer of state-of-the-art military technology.)

The fighter aircraft selected through the tender are expected to have a service life of 40 years. If the US doesn't secure the deal, forget about the so-called 'inter-operability' of the two armed forces. In the downstream, lack of 'inter-operability' will impede India joining the US-led national missile defence concept. India's participation in NMD (along with Japan [Images] and Australia in the Asian continent) is vitally important for the US geo-strategy of 'containment' of China (and Russia [Images]). The NMD is of fundamental importance to establishing US nuclear dominance over Russia and China.

But Mulford is right in a certain sense. There is a tactical consideration, too. The Bush administration is gearing up for a military attack on Iran. The military equipment required for a sea and air strike are already in the Persian Gulf aboard three aircraft-carrier battle groups. An attack on Iran would come anytime after the current IAEA work in Iran ends in December and the advent of desert summer.

The US administration and the UPA government will face an acute predicament unless the nuclear deal is got out of the way by January 2008. Washington's campaign on Iran's alleged nuclear programme would suffer if the nuclear deal is left hanging. The US's 'double standard' would become the stuff of ridicule.

Equally, for the UPA government, especially for Congress party, there is bound to be sensitivity in identifying with a US administration that is about to go on yet another 'crusade' against a Muslim country. For completely different reasons, therefore, the Manmohan Singh [Images] government and Bush administration have unspeakable concerns in ensuring that somehow the nuclear deal is wrapped up before the dogs of war are let loose in the Middle East.

M K Bhadrakumar is a former ambassador

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Sep 2007 11:28

Gerard wrote: They are also conducting subcritical tests.

LIF is meant for design of secondaries....

Sorry I meant the pit not the fission part; "primary" sort of just snuk in while typing; guess I was not paying enough attention. Apologies again.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Sep 2007 12:47

Will the left finally sell out by supporting the deal for continuation in political power till next elections? I expect so:

Left meets to plot strategy on N-deal

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Sep 2007 14:04

Cross referencing a post by Paul with KS article here for discussion

Exercising sovereignty
Mutuality of interests is the guiding factor

I am rather sorry to say but I dont agree with or like the many assertions in the article; It seems to nearly base the defense of the deal on

"All deals are merely instruments of convience and can be broken when needed the real relationships are governed by current climates"

Which by itself is a prefectly true argument of real world real-politick (full-two real here); it seems to be a very strange guiding principle for deciding what should be the nature of a good deal (any good deal) a priori; before the deal itself is created and framed. Going simply by the above logic; nearly any deal is good enough since if things dont turn out as they are expected it can be dispensed with forthwith. Why spend any time on trying to frame a good deal in the first place? Or why try and include all your concerns as US as clearly done with the 123 agreement? Sign a blank sheet of paper and take it as it comes?

It seems a very cynical defence of a deal which has not even been made; kind of "dont worry if it is bad; we wont bother with the bad parts in future; now sign" Huh!!

What if the bad part comes down just a week away?

Shouldnt the picture be -- "The deal seems to be good and robust at the current time and does us service; however just in case things turn bad in the future; we always have real world option of stepping out at the cost it entails"

There is a massive difference in the sense worst case option is used in the two scenarios.

How does the fact worst case option always exists in any deal makes sense to invoke it for justifaction and comparing any two situations? This is truly mindboggling. At least he could have tried to assure the folks of latter.

As to the quote

Even those who are worried about possible dimunition of sovereignty on account of India entering into international deals leading to the lifting of the technology embargo are not able to cite any past instance of India compromising on national sovereignty.

KS should know better than others that there is always a first time.

And I completely do not understand why he quotes critisisms against some bad decisions (along with good decisions) as a logic ground for dismissing all critisism "Oh people always crib; what of it". A lot of critisism in the past was valid and in any case has zero corelation with the present critisisms.

Too many broad brush tarring of different nuances as a single issue in here.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 28 Sep 2007 14:19

So KS wants an example of when India compromised on national sovereignity? Eh?

You don't have to go too far - the withdrawal of Indian forces from an imminent war after the Parliament attack - mainly on account of American pressure delivered by people like Armitrage and nandan nilekani.

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Sep 2007 14:53

Deleted, duplicate post

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Sep 2007 14:53

abhischekcc wrote:So KS wants an example of when India compromised on national sovereignity? Eh?

You don't have to go too far - the withdrawal of Indian forces from an imminent war after the Parliament attack - mainly on account of American pressure delivered by people like Armitrage and nandan nilekani.

Abhi,

What exactly do you think a war with Pakistan at that point of time would have achieved? If we crossed the line then either weâ€™d have had to go up till Lahore or push into POK. Do you realize the consequences of either move? I hope youâ€™re not advocating that the Indian forces should have crossed the border, said Hi to all the goats in Pakistan and come sauntering back.

The idea of war does excite jingoes, especially if they donâ€™t have to fight it. However realpolitk shows threat of war is sometimes more effective than actual war. Many of the decisions that the Kammandu had to take at that time to ward off a possible war are coming back to haunt him. Surely youâ€™ve noticed that?

Off course all this is not even factoring into consideration that a war could have easily escalated into a nuclear conflict.

Man if the US really did force the withdrawal of Indian forces, then heck they are a benign force which actually wants the best for India. So go for 123â€¦!

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 28 Sep 2007 16:32

You don't have to go too far - the withdrawal of Indian forces from an imminent war after the Parliament attack -

This was a compromise of national sovereignty? Folks, lets not bandy words around. The phrase "national sovereignty" has very specific meanings to someone like KS.

It has become passe to call ABV, MMS and others "traitors" for various aspects of action and inaction associated with them. The rest of us remember multiple instances in which Indira, Rajiv and Rao were accused of being traitors for not adopting a maximalist stand on every possible occasion, and yet history has viewed them very favorably. This should tell us that politics is the art of the possible.

Walking away from the impossible is not perfidy, it is good sense.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 28 Sep 2007 17:21

Calvin wrote:Folks, lets not bandy words around. The phrase "national sovereignty" has very specific meanings to someone like KS.

Can you enlighten us (moderately

), what exactly national sovereignity means in KS's lexicon? Since you have assured that he has a specific meaning of the term in his mind, I assume that you also know that.

It has become passe to call ABV, MMS and others "traitors" for various aspects of action and inaction associated with them.

I for one have given up that habit since a long time. It just detracts from the general line of argument.

Walking away from the impossible is not perfidy, it is good sense.

Why do you suggest that a punishment of pakistan is 'impossible'? IMVHO, it is a necessity.

Also do keep in mind that revenge is a necessary part of nation building. If we do not clearly identify who we are, then the core identity is disturbed, and we will no longer be able to articulate our POV across in international slugfests.

It was our parliament that was attacked, for allah's sake. Can't you get that? Our intolerance defines how far people can exploit us. This country is unnecessarily tolerant.

This was a compromise of national sovereignty?

Yes. Unquestionably. Just like the Kandahar surrender.

We allow every attack on India to go unanswered, and then wail that nobody listens to us.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Sep 2007 17:27

Guys: KS is on good ground in the article above. There are explanations, for India's support or non opposition for some of the brazen anti democratic actions of the erstwhile USSR. He is on very good ground that, when it comes to vital national interests, India's sovereignty, will never be compromised by some agreement - political will, willing.

His previous article making a case for, being a part of the international system also makes sense.

My only objection is the price being paid and the terms being agreed to. The objection is to also do with the strategies, methods and tactics adopted by the current political leadership.

Read the article again and delink, MMS from it. It makes sense.

Added: ABCC: KS is referring to sovereign actions not being limited by treaties, to protect vital national interests. I find the argument hollow that by making this deal, our sovereignty is being compromised. With that example, even our participation in the UN, which has an unequal framework, will infringe on our sovereignty.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 28 Sep 2007 17:46

ShauryaT wrote:With that example, even our participation in the UN, which has an unequal framework, will infringe on our sovereignty.

Let's not compare the UN with the NPT.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2007 20:59

KS is advocating Hudbhaya style of treaty making. This can be called realist school in diplomatic language but is still at variance with our legalistic, argumentative psyche. We are argumentative because our society is based on law and not on hudbhaya type realism.

I beg to submit respectfully that Mrs. G had not broken any law in word or spirit for the NPT allows 'peaceful' explosions and that clause was put in for civilian use of such massive explosions. FOR Trudeau to ask such an assurance was duplitious and beyond the requirements of international law.

See I am an argumentative Indian basing my arguements on law.

What I would like him to do as the high perceptor of security is to write a sealed document and give it to the GOI to be opened in times of grave national security crisis. There is a precedent for this. President Woodrow Wilson of USA wrote a sealed document for his successors in office dealing with how he dealt with the Lusitania crisis in WWI. That document was used to base the decisions of Franklin Roosevelt in WWII.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Sep 2007 21:12

ramana wrote:KS is advocating Hudbhaya style of treaty making. This can be called realist school in diplomatic language but is still at variance with our legalistic, argumentative psyche. We are argumentative because our society is based on law and not on hudbhaya type realism.

See I am an argumentative Indian basing my arguements on law.

I have different opinion of this word argumentative.It has nothing to do about legal or law.

It is not proper information (misleading and psy ops) and about the world and the threat to our existance which creates this uninformed discussion which is called 'argumentative'
Other countries and social groups see the threat to their existence early and awareness makes them to form uniform response which includes Hudbiya style. We are now learning the Hudbiya style foreign policy for our defense and survival.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Sep 2007 23:03

I searched, but couldn't get it googled. what is hudbhaya technique?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 28 Sep 2007 23:43

SaiK wrote:I searched, but couldn't get it googled. what is hudbhaya technique?

Try "hudaibiya". Agree for a Temporary peace, until you become stronger. That was the treaty at Hudaibiya with Mohammed on the side agreeing to this Temporary peace.

Commonly understood as," Kiss the hand of your enemy, until you are strong enough to cut it off". Settle for a false peace because right now you are not strong enough to fight. Bide your time to settle scores.

Added later: I dont think that KS is advocating a hudaibiya type of posture for India. The implication of hudaibiya is that the party who is the underdog in the agreement has no intention of honoring it once it becomes stronger i.e. the intention to dishonor is implicit at the time the agreement is signed. What KS is saying IMO is that India has every intention of honoring the agreements that it enters into. However at a later date if circumstances change radically enough such that India's sovereignity is at stake, India may have to revisit its agreements. And this revisiting has been done by various other nations at various points of time as KS has illustrated in his article.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Sep 2007 02:02

ldev wrote: However at a later date if circumstances change radically enough such that India's sovereignity is at stake, India may have to revisit its agreements. And this revisiting has been done by various other nations at various points of time as KS has illustrated in his article.

Exactly my point really; he is using the worst case ejection seat mechanism as a justification to fly the prototype plane in any condition.

"What matters if the plane is ready or not it has a ejection seat no?"

Funny approach IMVVVVHO.

Whats the hurry? Let the plane be designed completely first?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uncharitable (but human) possiblity: May be KS in his age is now restless and wants to see the nuclear transition through under his own stewardship? May be he is not confident of the people who will come after him???

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Sep 2007 02:12

Acharya wrote: Other countries and social groups see the threat to their existence early and awareness makes them to form uniform response which includes Hudbiya style. We are now learning the Hudbiya style foreign policy for our defense and survival.

If we Indians could see and agree on a threat early (a civilizational failing through the ages) we would never need the dirty techniques used by the barbarian nomadic tribes for our survival.

Our strength; that is the ability to see many paths and the sophistatication to life is our weakness at the same time; it makes us want to get a refined solution when a sledgehammer suffices.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Sep 2007 02:18

why style or technique needed for brass-tacks? call it whatever, if we have a loophole, then fix it now than later.. this, I agree with BJP calling for counter hyde act, and proceed with this deal.

what left sees is no approach at all, where is the question of technique comes into the picture if we have lefties denying everything as rational as one can put. what i dont understand is that they are totally denying and defying this deal as if its all wrong from the word go. no its not.. its only the hyde, that is the problem.

for the left, everything to its right is a problem.. they exists because of a name-space left for being left.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Sep 2007 02:44

Karat cannot distinguish between Nuclear reactors and arsenal buying from US. Anyway he has convinced Jyothi Basu and WB Chief Mins that they are ready to pull the strings out.

Karat's foolishness will lead to CPM defeat in the next election! Congress in advantage position - possibly with UPA without CPM a possible majority if something worked out with Mayawathi. BJP no loss no gain! remain the same or less

It is all set it seems for the early next year election based only on the Nuclear (possibly) cum RAM issues!

Hope the incoming one will continue with US the same policy!

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 29 Sep 2007 14:34

Unkil's chweet and reasonable side

US to 'move ahead' on N-deal only when India is ready (IE)

Hmmm, what happens to 'em 'India must move now by Mulford' kinda cowboy sentiments now, me wonders.

slightly OT but possibly relevant, IMO.

Bringing up Babus (IE)

Recently many secretary-level officers of the government of India had to attend a four-week training programme organised by IIM Ahmedabad in collaboration with the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The entire 1991 batch of IAS officers was made to attend the training programme at the Administration Academy (no families or leave of absence allowed) at Mussoorie including a training visit to the US. This was the first time in the history of the civil service that an entire batch of mid-level officers were made to undergo training simultaneously. The induction training curriculum at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration at Mussoorie too has been changed substantially following recommendations made by the R. Vaidyanatha Ayyar committee. It now includes, inter alia, attachment with an NGO, greater knowledge about functioning of industries and businesses and greater sensitivity to the processes of history, politics and globalisation.

An entire babu batch flown to the US for 'training'? Unkil's tentacles are deep. They've rightly identified the steel frame as the appropriate target that'll pay dividends in the long run far better than investing in messy desi netas, IMO.

Wouldn't trust unkil with our babus in a fishbait rich environ like massaland....

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 29 Sep 2007 18:26

Just like the Kandahar surrender.

abcc: Do you still think that this is a valid example, after the posts by Ramana and others above? "Sovereignty" has a very specific meaning.

Wikipedia, as usual, has relatively acceptable primer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignt ... tional_law

he is using the worst case ejection seat mechanism as a justification to fly the prototype plane in any condition.

Diplomacy and Politics are the art of the possible. What KS is pointing out is that the agreement we have here, will give us a lot of what we want, and in the event that it doesnt - we have a a "get out" clause.

For many of us who have actually had to negotiate agreements, this is precisely the kind of argument you have to make to gain approval from stakeholders who were not part of the process.

Agreements rarely represent "a well designed, tested, validated vehicle" - it is a means to assure two parties that don't completely trust each other's intentions that their interests will be protected, and that if their interests are not protected, there is a safe way out. To that extent, almost any agreement represents a "prototype" for a meaningful relationship.

If the parties completely trust each other, there would not be a need for a pre-nup, would there?

alokgupt · Post by **alokgupt** » 29 Sep 2007 18:46

joshvajohn wrote: Karat's foolishness will lead to CPM defeat in the next election! Congress in advantage position - possibly with UPA without CPM a possible majority if something worked out with Mayawathi. BJP no loss no gain! remain the same or less. Hope the incoming one will continue with US the same policy!

Politicians in India have always been very smart. The reason CPM suddenly after 3 years in power starting acting so forcefully is because elections are coming. Keep a note of sound bites and the actual actions.

Did Karat pull down Congress govt? NO.
Will he pull down Congress govt before mid-2008? NO.
Will CPM consider "withdrawing support" in later part of 2008? YES

The rationale being that the government would have already lasted its full term. After end of 2008 it will just last as caretaker and what's a few months (even NDA called elections six months early).

Now that CPM and Congress are both part of the government where will anti-establisment vote go to? Not UPA but NDA. This is something that Congress and CPM does not like. So they have come up with this clever scheme of stay in government but act like opposition

Basically a ploy to fool Indians

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Sep 2007 18:50

Sanku wrote:
Acharya wrote: Other countries and social groups see the threat to their existence early and awareness makes them to form uniform response which includes Hudbiya style. We are now learning the Hudbiya style foreign policy for our defense and survival.
If we Indians could see and agree on a threat early (a civilizational failing through the ages) we would never need the dirty techniques used by the barbarian nomadic tribes for our survival.

Our strength; that is the ability to see many paths and the sophistatication to life is our weakness at the same time; it makes us want to get a refined solution when a sledgehammer suffices.

Indians can see the threat early but psy ops media and indoctrination has removed the response from the leadership. This can be easily seen in the 80s-90s.

The world of media and psy ops in the last 60 years has increased in sophistication and India has been a largest target. Indian perception of threat has been changed with the result we see evangelists, terrorists and anti-national threat at the same time spreading without resistance.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Sep 2007 20:32

Acharya wrote:Indians can see the threat early but psy ops media and indoctrination has removed the response from the leadership. This can be easily seen in the 80s-90s.

The world of media and psy ops in the last 60 years has increased in sophistication and India has been a largest target.

This is totally OT for this thread but the world does not begin and end with psy ops and to state that the problem is there only because of psy ops in the last 60 years is inaccurate. The fundamental problem is the inability of Indians from the time of the first Muslim invasions under the Ummayad caliphate in the 7th century to the subsequent invasions by Mahmud Ghazni and others later, to defend India and furthermore even if faced with defeat initially, to be able to rally around and ultimately drive the invaders out. Spain was conquered by the Muslims in circa 700AD but after 700 years of occupation, the Muslims armies were driven out of Europe in the 14th century. And in addition the Christians of Europe thereafter attempted to follow the Muslim armies back to the Middle East during the Crusades. India has not been successful either in defending its territory completely or in following the invaders back to their home soil in retibution. Why? Maybe this question can be investigated in the Indian interests thread. But to assign everything to psy ops is plain wrong. What psy ops occurred in the 10th century when Mahmud Ghazni was maurauding India?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Sep 2007 21:40

ldev wrote:
This is totally OT for this thread but the world does not begin and end with psy ops and to state that the problem is there only because of psy ops in the last 60 years is inaccurate.

It may look silly but with awareness this become very powerful. The main weapon of the western countries is the psy ops media.
It is easy to make fun and dismiss such things.

The fundamental problem is the inability of Indians from the time of the first Muslim invasions under the Ummayad caliphate in the 7th century to the subsequent invasions by Mahmud Ghazni and others later, to defend India and furthermore even if faced with defeat initially, to be able to rally around and ultimately drive the invaders out.
India has not been successful either in defending its territory completely or in following the invaders back to their home soil in retibution. Why? Maybe this question can be investigated in the Indian interests thread. But to assign everything to psy ops is plain wrong. What psy ops occurred in the 10th century when Mahmud Ghazni was maurauding India?

We are not talking of the medival times. Colonial and subjugating forces were totally different from the stable soceities of the east. The ideologies were alien and still are alien to Indian thought process.
After Indian Independence did the Indian historians and scholars studied this. Can you tell me why not. What were they doing in the 60 years.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 29 Sep 2007 21:50

Psyops is part of the public face of any deal. While people may becomes used to the psyops and realise them from a distance, the leadership on the other hand may have their own interests behind pushing through any deal and may not necessarily always converge with the interests of public. So the latter is the more important point to ponder.

Constant psyops will put the mango man either to sleep or keep him confused, paranoid and clueless.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 29 Sep 2007 23:40

...the leadership on the other hand may have their own interests behind pushing through any deal and may not necessarily always converge with the interests of public.

1. The "public" generally does not speak with one voice.
2. In a constitutional republic, the "majority" of the "public" do not get their way every time.
3. Just because the public wants something, doesn't mean that they are right.

For #2, see the US invasion of Iraq

For #3, see the public demand for terrorist release in regard to IC814.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Sep 2007 02:36

Calvin wrote: 1. The "public" generally does not speak with one voice.

In a polity, such as India, The Indian public does not speak with one voice, on most issues, because, the republic, its current and past leaders, have done a poor job of uniting Indians as Indian, first.

2. In a constitutional republic, the "majority" of the "public" do not get their way every time.

Indeed not and is not the case in most republics. However, the case in most republics, is the elected representatives of the people get their way. However, in India, due to the disqualification acts, along with party whips and the lack of a true federal system, the status of the elected parliamentarians in decision making, is largely reduced to that of a sheep with their leaders acting as the shepherds. This has resulted in a concetration of power in the hands of the very few, sometimes, even in the hands of extra constitutional powers, such as Sonia and Bal Thackeray.

3. Just because the public wants something, doesn't mean that they are right.

That is why, there is an elected representative system. The representatives are accountable to the people.

For #2, see the US invasion of Iraq

It had the majority support in congress. The congress continues to not use its power to stop funding for the war, as was done for Vietnam. The public can be manipulated. If the number of deaths, of Americans in the war goes down, significantly, along with its costs, the scene will change.

For #3, see the public demand for terrorist release in regard to IC814.

Complete side show the demands of the relatives was. There were no real good choices. It would have been possible for the BJP, to stand up in the name of national security and possibly put the lives of the passengers of IC 814 at great risk. In reality, there was no way out, in a land locked Afghanistan, and no assets, who could intervene in the time period invloved.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Sep 2007 02:44

Complete side show the damands of the relatives was.

The Israeli cabinet faced similar public pressure over the Entebbe hostages. Release of jailed terrorists was considered but they had the option for a possible military solution (unlike India) . Even so, the decision was not an easy one for their cabinet. Many ministers advocated release of the terrorists. When they finally agreed on the raid, the Israeli PM turned to Shimon Peres and told him the commandos could go, Peres told him "they are already in the air." He was ready to call them back at any time but had ordered them to take off since time was running out.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Sep 2007 02:50

Gerard wrote:
Complete side show the damands of the relatives was.
The Israeli cabinet faced similar public pressure over the Entebbe hostages. Release of jailed terrorists was considered but they had the option for a possible military solution (unlike India) . Even so, the decision was not an easy one for their cabinet. Many ministers advocated release of the terrorists. When they finally agreed on the raid, the Israeli PM turned to Shimon Peres and told him the commandos could go, Peres told him "they are already in the air." He was ready to call them back at any time but had ordered them to take off since time was running out.

Gerard: To clarify, my point was, it is not that the government caved into the demands of the relatives, as the cynics make it out to be.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 30 Sep 2007 03:47

The Indian public does not speak with one voice, on most issues, because, the republic, its current and past leaders, have done a poor job of uniting Indians as Indian, first.

This is a ludicrous comment.

The polity that are opposing this are not opposing it because they are not Indians, nor are the people supporting this supporting this because they are not Indians. Look at this forum. Are you suggesting that half of this forum are not Indian?

However, in India, due to the disqualification acts, along with party whips and the lack of a true federal system, the status of the elected parliamentarians in decision making, is largely reduced to that of a sheep with their leaders acting as the shepherds. This has resulted in a concetration of power in the hands of the very few, sometimes, even in the hands of extra constitutional powers, such as Sonia and Bal Thackeray.

Mahatma Gandhi was the first extra-constitutional concentration of power in this country. Extraconstitutional influences are, ipso facto, not anti-democratic.

And yet, successive governments spanning the political spectrum succeeded in creating one of the most stable polities in the world.

Despite this "concentration of power in extra constitutional hands" governments have routinely been voted out of office.

The public can be manipulated.

Ah, how does this square with the original allegation in regard to the "interests of the public" which was seemingly incontrovertible. So, perhaps, you were merely using the "public" to advance another agenda.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Sep 2007 06:28

Calvin wrote:
The Indian public does not speak with one voice, on most issues, because, the republic, its current and past leaders, have done a poor job of uniting Indians as Indian, first.
This is a ludicrous comment.

The polity that are opposing this are not opposing it because they are not Indians, nor are the people supporting this supporting this because they are not Indians. Look at this forum. Are you suggesting that half of this forum are not Indian?

You are obviously, completely oblivious to the great chasm that exists, in the Indian polity. The Indian polity is divided is a fact. The polity is divided along communal, regional, liguistic and caste lines, is a fact. Our leaders have failed to unify this country to subsume these differences, is a fact. How many elections in India, are fought on national issues? (Come back with some light on this question, if you have any knowledge in this area or have read any works). Our own bloody consitituion, pays lip service to articles 15 (equality) clauses of the constitution, is a fact (Another suggestion, to you is to read some constitutional reviews on this subject alone). The whole definition, of what makes you Indian, is up for debate (again, this is not some debate in my mind, but is being debated in the highest bodies and by keen observers of our system). What part of this, do you not understand?

Please do not put words, imagined by you in my posts, that I am calling people opposing or some members of this forum, as not Indians. Sometimes, I wonder, if you even read, what is being said or simply go on with comments, such as holding an agenda or go on accusing others of being ludicruous. If you do not agree with views, that do not make sense to you, and do not have a better response, then at least have the decency, to not go on accusing, everybody else of holding an agenda, for it is not the first time you are doing this.

However, in India, due to the disqualification acts, along with party whips and the lack of a true federal system, the status of the elected parliamentarians in decision making, is largely reduced to that of a sheep with their leaders acting as the shepherds. This has resulted in a concetration of power in the hands of the very few, sometimes, even in the hands of extra constitutional powers, such as Sonia and Bal Thackeray.

Mahatma Gandhi was the first extra-constitutional concentration of power in this country. Extraconstitutional influences are, ipso facto, not anti-democratic.

A fact by itself! A democracy with extra-constitutional authorites, that override a democratically elected office or body is oxymoronic. It defeats the purpose of democracy, itself.

You are wrong, on two counts. First, the republic of India did not exist, when Gandhi was around. So no question of him being an extra constitutional authority. (Even a Gandhi, has no right to being such an authority, in a democratic setup. His influence over the INC. is another matter) Another is, the examples, I have provided, are not influences but extra-constitutional authorities - as in a blank check. Please go and do find out, the impact of the acts highlighted, on Indian polity. If you have any doubts, then you are not living in reality or are not a keen observer of the Indian political system.

And yet, successive governments spanning the political spectrum succeeded in creating one of the most stable polities in the world.

Despite this "concentration of power in extra constitutional hands" governments have routinely been voted out of office.

First, credit goes to our civilization ethos, which does not need any lecture from anyone on our capability to continue with, any form of humane government system, for its people. Second, just about the only thing, I credit Nehru for.

The public can be manipulated.

Ah, how does this square with the original allegation in regard to the "interests of the public" which was seemingly incontrovertible. So, perhaps, you were merely using the "public" to advance another agenda.

Go right ahead and read my mind, on what my "agenda" is. Is this about the only thing, you can come up with, if people are not in agreement with you. I do not even understand, what you are referring to. What part of my statement is contravening, to what I have said above?

I have to agree, this response was in some what of an angry mode. But, you being an admin, hold a higher respnsibility to promote debate and certainly, call to question, if things are being said, without a basis in fact. If so, I will humbly accept any mistakes, without any undue debate.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 30 Sep 2007 10:37

Code: Select all

May 17, 2007
[b]A nuclear test by itself does not give one a deterrent capability. In fact, a single or even a few nuclear tests do not mean anything at all.[/b]

There are many reasons related to the physics and engineering of nuclear bombs or warheads that necessitate a full testing programme for each weapon design. There are still more reasons related to the concept, strategy and psychology of deterrence that also necessitate continued nuclear testing.

There are plenty of reports in America that attest to the importance of weapons designs undergoing full testing programmes before they are given to the military for induction.

In 1987, for instance, an American committee set out to rubbish an earlier report that had said nuclear testing was necessary to maintain nuclear weapons. [b]The second report actually ended up concluding that: 'Most of the reliability problems in the past have resulted from either an incomplete testing program during the development phase of a weapon or the aging and deterioration of weapon components during deployment'.[/b]

The Indo-US nuclear deal |  The nuclear deal chats

[b]Robert Joseph, the current Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, who has insisted that India should undertake not to conduct any further nuclear tests in exchange for civil nuclear cooperation, had concluded in a 1998 study that 'retaining the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing is the highest-risk component of the US strategy for sustaining deterrence'.[/b]

If these reports from a nation that has conducted over a thousand nuclear tests, and built and deployed thousands of nuclear weapons over the last six decades, are not enough to make the Manmohan Singh government give some more thought to the 'no more nuclear tests' diktat of the Hyde Act, consider what a former nuclear weapons testing expert has said.
[b]
Some years ago, Theodore Taylor, a former nuclear weapons testing expert at the Lawrence Livermoore Nuclear Laboratory explained the necessity of thoroughly testing different types of nuclear weapons.[/b]

According to Taylor, zero-yield testing would suffice to give confidence that simple fission weapons would work. Such tests can be done 'by producing a fission yield high enough to be observable with radiation detectors placed close to the weapon, but still equivalent to less than 1 gram of high explosive'.[b] To be confident about boosted fission weapons, however, 'these have to be tested at full or close to full yield'.
[/b]
Says Taylor:  'ï¿½there is some minimum threshold yield below which tests of boosting are not possibleï¿½ Deviations from idealized, calculated performanceï¿½ along with the considerable complexity of the boosting process itself -- involving important feedbacks between fission and fusion as the explosion proceeds -- tend to make it necessary to test boosted weapons at full yield if they are to be put into weapons stockpilesï¿½

'[b]How well boosting will work in a weapon of a particular design cannot be determined with high confidence by calculations, laboratory tests,[/b] or very low yield nuclear testsï¿½ Data from past nuclear tests incorporating boosting can help considerably in predicting the performance of new types of boosted weapons. Without prior experience of this kind, however, weapon developers would need to test boosted weapons to be confident of their performance'.

A[b]bout thermonuclear weapons, 'It is difficult to imagine confident stockpiling of thermonuclear weapons by a country that has never tested any with yields substantially larger than the yields of their fission triggers..[/b]. thermonuclear weapons are substantially more complex and subject to performance uncertainties than fission weapons. Confident development of thermonuclear weapons is therefore likely to require nuclear tests with yields greater than a quarter or so of the full design yield'.

Accepting Taylor's wisdom, we must conclude that to be able to build 100 KT boosted fission weapons and confidently induct them into the arsenal, India would have to test such a device at close to that yield at least once. To be able to build 200-500 KT warheads ï¿½ a capability claimed by India ï¿½ it would have to test a thermonuclear device at 50-125 KT yield at least once. India has done neither until now.

[b]There is yet another crucial consideration for India. Suppose it continues to observe its not-so-voluntary moratorium on testing for the next two decades, as it did between 1974 and 1998. At a later date, it is likely to find itself unable to conduct nuclear tests even if it wanted to or to make nuclear weapons of new designs.[/b]

That's because, as Professors Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi of the University of Edinburgh found out, making nuclear weapons involves a lot of tacit knowledge that is innate to those working, say, on a lump of plutonium which has to be machined into a very precise shape and size for every particular equation of state.

Such expertise and experience were available to India in 1998 even after a gap of 24 years because many of the scientists, engineers, technologists and machinists who were involved with the 1974 test were still around in 1998. But ten or twenty years from now, they won't be, and in all likelihood all that tacit knowledge ï¿½ which is non-transferrable -- will be gone with them. And the Indian nuclear weapons programme will have to start from scratch again.

Given these realities, the Indian claims of not needing any more nuclear tests and its continued observance of its voluntary moratorium seem silly. No wonder the world refuses to regard India as a nuclear weapons power.

It is time to put an end to our jingoism and silly claims and to prove our deterrent capability. As someone said, ''[b]deterrence, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder''. And if the beholder cannot see a well-tested 100 KT warhead, he is unlikely to be deterred for long.

[/b]

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 30 Sep 2007 10:48

ShauryaT: There are so many assumptions inherent to your post that I am not going to address them. Suffice to say that, for example, because you think elections should be fought on "national issues", doesn't mean that they should be. Some might aver that all politics is local. We can go on, but it would be best to take it offline. You know my address.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 30 Sep 2007 10:49

Date Name Yield (kT) Country Significance
Jul 16 1945 Trinity 19 Flag of the United States USA First fission device test
Aug 6 1945 Little Boy 15 Flag of the United States USA Bombing of Hiroshima, Japan
Aug 9 1945 Fat Man 21 Flag of the United States USA Bombing of Nagasaki, Japan
Aug 29 1949 Joe 1 22 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR First fission weapon test by the USSR
Oct 3 1952 Hurricane 25 Flag of the United Kingdom UK First fission weapon test by the UK
Nov 1 1952 Ivy Mike 10,400 Flag of the United States USA First "staged" thermonuclear weapon test (not deployable)
Aug 12 1953 Joe 4 400 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR First fusion weapon test by the USSR (not "staged", but deployable)
Mar 1 1954 Castle Bravo 15,000 Flag of the United States USA First deployable "staged" thermonuclear weapon; fallout accident
Nov 22 1955 RDS-37 1,600 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR First "staged" thermonuclear weapon test by the USSR (deployable)
Nov 8 1957 Grapple X 1,800 Flag of the United Kingdom UK First (successful) "staged" thermonuclear weapon test by the UK
Feb 13 1960 Gerboise Bleue 70 Flag of France France First fission weapon test by France
Oct 31 1961 Tsar Bomba 50,000 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR Largest thermonuclear weapon ever tested
Oct 16 1964 596 22 Flag of the People's Republic of China China First fission weapon test by China
Jun 17 1967 Test No. 6 3,300 Flag of the People's Republic of China China First "staged" thermonuclear weapon test by China
Aug 24 1968 Canopus 2,600 Flag of France France First "staged" thermonuclear test by France
May 18 1974 Smiling Buddha 12 Flag of India India First fission nuclear explosive test by India
May 11 1998 Shakti I 43 Flag of India India First potential fusion/boosted weapon test by India
(exact yields disputed, between 25kt and 45kt)
May 11 1998 Shakti II 12 Flag of India India First deployable fission weapon test by India
May 28 1998 Chagai-I 9-12? Flag of Pakistan Pakistan First fission weapon test by Pakistan
Oct 9 2006 Hwadae-ri <1 Flag of North Korea North Korea First fission device tested by North Korea

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2007 02:47

It looks like UPA govt was advised to go slow as there is fear of instability in whole of sub-continent while the TSP elections are in the balance. Thats why Karat and co are gentle about the whole process.

-----------
Also in response to M.K. Bhadrakumar's article about the hurry to get the deal going, why doesn't the US as show of good faith grant a waiver and let the US companies bid for the 126 a/c deal? After all the Hyde Act is a an act of bad faith.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 01 Oct 2007 05:03

Ramana - how does that square with Mulford's comments?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Oct 2007 11:58

Bhadrakumar has answered to a large extent the question,"Why the indecent haste"? If one has been tracking the undercurrents in investment and tie-ups between US corporate groups with strong military-political ties and Indian majors (like the Tatas) specifically in aviation and military-use dual technology,the "indecent haste" becomes clearer as the former ambassador put it.With defence acquisitions overthe next 5 years estimated to be around $60 billion,the us wants "pole position" in this race,starting with the MMRCA contract.Linking the award with Indian majors,who will share some of the contract is the strategy.US companies hope that the local corporate giants will use their legendary influence with whatever dispensation is on top to swing the deal the US's way.That is why Russia is giving us a none to subtle hint that any huge "swing" into Uncle Sam's orbit will fidn it very hard going for us in other areas,where Russian technology is vital for about 75% of our defence industry.

The second point that Ambassador Bhadrakumar makes is more acute and relevant,that the imminent attack against Iran will definitely take place well before Bush demits office,as inside info suggests.The excuse for attacking Iran is its nuclear ambitions and unless the Indo-US deal is wrapped up,it will look extremely hypocritical for the US to attack Iran after the litany of lies used to attack Iraq.This impending attack on Iran is also making clearer why the US is accelerating the rapproachment with N.Korea .The decks have to be cleared before the Iran gambit is launched.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 01 Oct 2007 13:52

Calvin wrote:
Just like the Kandahar surrender.
abcc: Do you still think that this is a valid example, after the posts by Ramana and others above? "Sovereignty" has a very specific meaning.

Wikipedia, as usual, has relatively acceptable primer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignt ... tional_law

Let's take any of the recent terrorist outrages in India - Parliament attack, Kaluchak, etc, etc.

What did we do after those acts to punish the perpetrators? Or the effette pak army? Nothing absolutely.

Compare the robust response of the Russians to a far more determined enemy. They have suffered far less attacks because they adopted the policy of punishing the enemy.

Why should this be important? It's very simple. A government's legitimacy depends on its ability to defend the people. This is important before even the luxury we call democracy. Inability to defend the country and trhe lives of the people simply means that the govt is illegitimate, even if it wins elections.

Since you quote International Laws at me, I shall also give the definition of a government as per International Law: It is the entity with monopoly on violence in a given region.

If America defends pak, the true originator of these attacks, then it is damaging India's sovereignity. Because it is damaging GoI's legitimate rule in this region. And if a government accepts that listening to an external power is more important than defending the lives of India's citizens, then that government loses the right to govern.

Vajpayee was punished for these very reasons in the 2003 defeat. And he was rewarded for this very reason in 1998. Too bad he does not learn his own lessons.

Bharat Rakshak

Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread

Nuclear game!

Re: Nuclear game!