Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 08 Apr 2008

[SaiK]

Correct, cutting our budget down for civilian nukes, mamos govt has clearly saying they would do anything to let in the firangies. the faults of this govt includes not taking the opposition into confidence, and taking a veto route. I understand, this is very important civilian power requirements, but the very fact its a civlian deal, means it has nothing to do with defence startegic requirements. perhaps, mamose and startegy is all finance related, and hence such a situation.

He has done his job well.. now, we will face funds crunch for bhabha's 3rd stage realizations. Can the next govt increase the funds again? it remains to be seen. Hope the oppositions are not bought into this cutting our own legs.

Under the banner of strategic relations, we have exposed our only freedom that was available for long term civilian strategic nukes. Or is there anything I/We don't know about the status of Th power, and may be we have come to a realization positive/negative that either we have achieved something fantastic, and we can relax on budget cuts, or we have realized hiccups.

We are penny-desh-wise, and pound-firang-foolish.

[Gerard]

Former diplomat slams n-deal, says US arm-twisting India

[Rye]

Posted by Gerard in the international nuclear thread:

There is also a post that Iran is claiming it will sell its nuclear tech to all muslim countries.

The GNEP is related to the 123 and is not likely to take off, Which means that any claims that India will be "reprocessing hub" are bogus.


If this is the reality, it seems ridiciculous to pretend that India is a rising power and yet does not have the werewithal to develop non-NSG alternatives in as many places as possible. The climate seems to be one of a DECREASING secruity environment, which means the necessity for nuke powers to test their nukes is going to increase, which is why there is this unseemly hurry to get "the only camel pissing outside the tent" into the tent (where presumably the camel will be clubbed and made into Kebab, dim sum or barbecue away from the public view ).

British, Russian Support May Not Save Ambitious Nuclear Power Club
RICHARD WEITZ | BIO | 10 APR 2008
WORLD POLITICS REVIEW EXCLUSIVE

After hesitating several years, the British government finally accepted American entreaties to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), becoming its 21st member on Feb. 26, 2008.

The British and Russian endorsements provide welcome support for the initiative as well as for the global revival of nuclear power more broadly. Nevertheless, the GNEP remains in trouble, both internationally and within the United States.

The stated dual purpose of the partnership, launched by the Bush administration in February 2006, is to develop new technologies and new fuel-lending arrangements to allow for the expanded use of nuclear energy globally without encouraging further nuclear weapons proliferation. In implementing the program, the Department of Energy has pursued four broad objectives: decrease U.S. reliance on foreign energy sources without impeding U.S. economic growth; employ improved technologies to recover more energy and reduce waste when recycling spent nuclear fuel; encourage the use of energy sources that emit the least atmospheric greenhouse gasses; and reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation. (So many goals..so little time)

Business Secretary John Hutton emphasized the commercial benefits that would accrue to Britain with its entry: "With the U.K.'s advanced knowledge and capabilities, particularly in nuclear waste management, GNEP opens up the potential for U.K. organizations to share their expertise globally through tapping into international projects and building business partnerships."

Even CANDU corp. just broke away from Britain and went on its own -- did that influence Britain's enthusiasm for this program?

At the meeting, the U.S. was elected to chair the group, with China, France, and Japan as vice-chairs, for a two-year term.

Nevertheless, the GNEP has had difficulty securing the support of important countries. The Indian government, which is deciding whether to commit to a separate bilateral civil nuclear energy agreement with the United States, has declined invitations to join GNEP. Many Indians worry that doing so might constrain their ability to enrich uranium, suspecting that India would not receive the same right to develop and sell civilian nuclear technologies as the established nuclear powers due to its commingled civilian and military nuclear programs.

South African authorities have expressed an interest in collaborating with foreign governments to develop nuclear enrichment capabilities, but outside the GNEP.

Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, and Turkey have yet to advance from candidate or observer status. Each has announced plans to expand their use of nuclear power as well as enrich at least some of their own fuel, making the governments wary of fully committing to GNEP's nonproliferation goals.

[Rye]

Here is one way breaking down the possibilities -- please feel free to shoot down/correct:

There are three possible futures for Indian security (IS) (which is considered to be different from "international community" security (ICS). in the medium/long term:

the trends for both IS and ICS are:

better security Vs. worse security Vs. no change

This leaves with 5 possibilities:

IS increases ICS decreases: This means the US/UK will be more vulnerable than us...not a bad place to be (for India).

IS decreases ICS decreases: a JDAM attack or a breakdown of deterrence - in this case, every govt. worth its salt will start to behave in unpredictable ways.

IS decreases ICS increases: This can happen if India castrates itself and signs up to unhelpful treaties, fails to develop local human resources, flunks on food security, and buys billions of dollars worth of foreign nuclear reactors that place India in debt for a long time. India will become a satellite power of some other world power.

IS increases ICS increases: This is a win-win situation that will keep the global env. stable for a while, but will also allow the "intl. comm." to increase pressure to stitch up the NPT.

IS and ICS no change: ??

If the long-term probability of a destabilizing international event is close to 1 then the climate for testing will show up, when India can site national security concerns and test its heart out -- this is highly likely given the kind of warmongering nation China is proving itself.

If the long-term probability of such a destabilizing event is closer to zero, then economic power would be more important than military power, though the latter would have to be *formidable* to secure India's business interests from predators in the "international community".

[Kati]

Courstsey Ramnarayan

Sabotaging India’s rise

10 Apr 2008, 0001 hrs IST,AMIT MITRA

The CPM and its Left cohorts have been vigorously arguing against the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal on the grounds of the Hyde Act.

But now the mask is off; the Hyde Act is only a red herring. The real reason, from the very beginning, was to prevent India from going into a strategic alliance with the US. Such an alliance could disturb China’s emerging unipolar hegemony over Asia.

The Singh-Bush accord could, in fact, help in creating a multipolar Asia with Japan and India playing significant roles, along with China, in the 21st century. This so-called imperialist design of a multi-polar Asia, dotted by so many ’petty-bourgeois demo-cracies’ and ’neo-liberal’ economies, is just not acceptable to Comrade Prakash Karat. .........
(The writer is secretary-general, FICCI.)

This should go to the psy-op thread. Amit-babu is just looking at his fat pocket and want to make it fatter by bidding for some crumbs thrown by the US multinationals. (So wining and dining the elite class with free flow of green-back is going on pretty well.) If the US is so interested in checking China then they can pass another bill making Hyde act non applicale to 123 deal.
If China rises to challange US, then its US' interest to counter China. We'll go along as long as we don't get used as a broom.

[NRao]

The Singh-Bush accord could, in fact, help in creating a multipolar Asia with Japan and India playing significant roles, along with China, in the 21st century. This so-called imperialist design of a multi-polar Asia, dotted by so many ’petty-bourgeois demo-cracies’ and ’neo-liberal’ economies, is just not acceptable to Comrade Prakash Karat. .........

And a nuclear India is not acceptable to both the CPI AND the US!!!!

[ramana]

If the long-term probability of a destabilizing international event is close to 1 then the climate for testing will show up, when India can site national security concerns and test its heart out -- this is highly likely given the kind of warmongering nation China is proving itself.

If the long-term probability of such a destabilizing event is closer to zero, then economic power would be more important than military power, though the latter would have to be *formidable* to secure India's business interests from predators in the "international community".

The pro-dealers say its the latter. Most anti/nay-dealers want GOI to hedge for situation one. No matter this govt even if it acquires Divya astras wont be trusted for it has shown a remarkable absence of spine.
MMS talked about credible minimum deterrent and has done the most to undermine the first adjective.

[Katare]

Generally accepted facts/POVs at BRF -

- More testing is needed for India to achieve minimum credible deterrence
- Testing now or in near future will have political and economic cost with or without the deal
- It’s highly unlikely that India would conduct any more tests in foreseeable future unless provoked/threatened
- Economic cost of testing after deal would be higher than without it
- Nuclear deal will have real economic and technical benefits for India and USA/Fr/Ru/Br
- There is a huge shortage of nuclear fuel aka Uranium which is unsolvable with import at least in short to medium term
- Energy security of India would improve with the signing of the deal
- US is not trustworthy party and its domestic politics could over ride international treaties
- 123 doesn’t give India status equal to a P5 nation

A person can conclude the deal either way based on above statements or generally accepted views @ BRF.

Looking at these POVs the issue is still as murky as it was 20 threads back. BRF is a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals but it is still so hard to get anywhere close to a simple majority leave aside a consensus.

Gives you a perspective as to how hard it is for GoI to achieve a consensus on any single issue.

I have still not understood what is the relation between testing and this deal? Either way the issues and consequences would be same. The benefits of the deal would more than pay for the escalated cost of testing.

By signing the deal, India tacitly binds itself to the Hyde act. Testing after signing the 123 deal would almost be tantamount to a NPT signatory testing without leaving the NPT. Whatever consequences/actions the US takes/initiates would have a legal basis.

Arun, You have made a lot of points about hyde act and NPT which have other side to it . US always had legal basis of putting sanctions on nations (Non-P5) which are developing nuclear weapons and in any case it doesn't need any legal basis.

Further, the US isn't going to pass India through the NSG and then let India go shopping elsewhere.

All contracts in India especially the ones that would be developed in private sector would be awarded on global tender basis as is the norm. i don't think anyone would or could get a free ride on India's expense. Since US is helping India get through I would assume that there would be a Govt to Govt deal at least initially for a few reactors.

In any case, assuming that India does diversify its suppliers, then by testing, India would have broken its commitments to the NSG!

India is not making any commitment to any country that it'll not test nuclear devices in future. The commitment would only involve material imported from those countries would not be used for strategic program which is fair IMO.

This will result in forsaking most if not all the nuclear hardware, and other big ticket items, that will be pushed down India's throat after signing the deal. India will be saddled with tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of junk, it can never use without showing "regret" by signing off on some nauseatingly humiliating terms akin to the Treaty of Versailles !

Even if India tests and they put sanctions there is no way they can take the power plants/hardware back or stop the supply immediately. Technically and commercially it is not possible. Also most of the imported reactors would be financed by exporting country, sanctions would mean that they loose that equity money (aka Dabhol/Enron/GE). Even the reactors and hardware Indian imported pre Smiling Bhudhha are being run with imported fuel supplies on the basis of safety concerns etc. On top of it, we would have a significant stockpile, technology and capacity to ease the pain through transition.

Bear in mind that the recent drastic budgetary cuts in the indigenous nuclear industry are purposed to make way for massive imports of near-obsolete foreign nuclear technologies.

I am still looking for more data etc on this cut in Budget to find out what actually happened. Anyhow the strategic program is funded through defense budget and budgetary support for civilian program depends on the need and reserves of NPCL/BHAVANi which are running well over a billion each IIRC.

Signing off on the 123/NSG arrangement will also involve other seriously debilitating and far-reaching consequences. One must keep in mind N.Burns' statement "Everything goes through Washington"!!! The FMCT and CTBT will almost certainly closely follow, and after that, a moratorium on Indian missile development and testing. That is the eventual goal of the concerned powers-that-be.

Burn can say what he wants, Pranav also said a lot of things what you believe is your choice. About FMCT/CTBT/Missile, I don't believe it is possible for any nation to force this on us

By testing without the 123/NSG deal, India goes to a position quite a bit stronger than it was in 1998, without breaking commitments made to any single Nation or cartel!

I do not think India is making any commitment to any nation that it'll not test. They have been clear from the start that it is India's sovereign right to decide.

In addition, India would have demonstrated its seriousness about possessing a credible nuclear deterrent, instead of relying on the naked lies told by a bunch of charlatans (RC, etc...), which in any case are not taken seriously by the powers-that-be. From a historical perspective, it would demonstrate that Indians are capable of a formulating and sustaining a self-defense policy over a substantial period of time, breaking an unsavory tradition that has festered over a millennium. Specifically, the 1998 tests were not an isolated process or a knee-jerk reaction, but part of a deliberate and prolonged strategy, which can withstand historical aberrations and roadblocks like the MMS/UPA regime.

The only reason minority NDA govt exploded those nukes was to gain the power in Delhi permanently. That decision was almost illegal and most certainly unethical for a minority govt. UPA is at least saying that it would not sign the deal unless it has majority of parliament support although they don't need it legally. If there was long term planning why NDA didn't retest in next 5 years since Hydrogen bomb which you accept came out dud?

Gives you a perspective as to how hard it is for GoI to achieve a consensus on any single issue.

The answer could never be further from the truth. With regards to the UPA regime, its primarily what SG dictates.
This is based on how much spin-offs will be there to further her "personal beliefs", and the amount of deposits made into the accounts of the Manio-Gandhi syndicate. A secondary consideration is the deposits that are made in the accounts of select politicians, administrators, journalists, NGO's, etc....

These are your political views which you are entitled to, I would not argue with these.

[Katare]

A person can conclude the deal either way based on above statements or generally accepted views @ BRF.

Looking at these POVs the issue is still as murky as it was 20 threads back. BRF is a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals but it is still so hard to get anywhere close to a simple majority leave aside a consensus.

BRF is NOT a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals and here it is not a democracy for concensus making.

You prolly use a very different defination than I do and consensus has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy works on majority.

[shyamd]

Yawn!
Nuclear weapons in India will increase risk of terrorism

[Katare]

I have still not understood what is the relation between testing and this deal? Either way the issues and consequences would be same. The benefits of the deal would more than pay for the escalated cost of testing.

No! go back and read Arun s reply few posts above.

Nuclear deal will have real economic and technical benefits for India and USA/Fr/Ru/Br

Not necessarily true, on the contrary USA/Fr?RU beneift out of this because we will be buying their reactors/technology (at least partially even if some equipment is made in India) all these come at a cost again refer Arun_s posts above.

John Garu,

Selling equipment generates one time economic activity for seller that reactor will generate economic value in India worth 100x of its cost.

Our domestic companies would also be able to supply components and EPC services for other countries capitalizing on labor arbitrage and talent pool. Remember its civilian business and no restrictions on trade exists once you are legally in.

The benefits doesn’t stop for India only in nuke field rest of the technology control regime also goes away with it.

[svinayak]

You prolly use a very different defination than I do and consensus has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy works on majority.

We are only talking in the world of BRF not the real world

[ramdas]

Just went back and read V. Sunder's article in BR Monitor abt crater phenomenology and yield estimation. Seems that the S1 shaft was meant for a 100kt yield. So, that was probably what the device would have been designed for. In which case there might have been a thin secondary tamper/ thin radiation case. In other words, the design was not meant to be conservative. On the other hand, it was done by a group of people who did not even use the full experimental facilities available to validate their ideas. This caused S1 to prematurely disintegrate giving just 45kt. Hopefully the redesign took into account feedback from CAT. Also, especially when testing opportunities are low, it is better to be conservative in design even if yield/weight ratio is somewhat compromised.

[bala]

He has categorically stated his conclusions based on public domian knowledge that were interpreted with science.

Spinster, I appreciate you batting for Arun_S but he does have knowledge beyond public domain, which makes it hard for us commoners to know the inner workings of DAE. This discussion of POK-II, should have been made in 1998-1999 and the post mortem analysis should have involved an independent expert group. Very surprising for a BJP govt to have handled this national security matter callously. There are serious charges being leveled at people who manage large organizations, which must be driven by leadership and open reviews. Anyways, the testing issue for a reliable TN weapon requires more than 1 or 2 tests, seriously speaking this could be in the 10-20 range until the Armed Forces are convinced of a reliable fool proof weapon that they can deploy in 100s against a belligerent China. Where can India get such a window of opportunity to test without incurring International wrath.

I agree with Katare, that 123 and testing are orthogonal issues. The 123 is about civilian nuclear co-operation. Hyde comes into play only when India tests and even under such circumstances the conditions for the US to renege are very steep in cost. The only way out, as far as I can see, is for India to say that during the current year and before final sign of on 123, India will be conducting 10 - 20 nuclear tests to absolutely make sure its nuclear deterrent against China. Then all the cards are out in the open and if the US walks away from 123 then we know what the real intents were. Otherwise it is win win.

[ramdas]

A test or two at full yield is certainly a must for starters. Beyond that, testing is not the only way to build credibility. A committed investment in a LIF facility of appropriate power in the non civilian sector is a way to avoid testing and still have a credible TN deterrent.

It is not just signing away testing rights or signing a deal that makes the curent dispensation's commitment to the deterrent suspect . It is this deal on the one hand together with the fact that concrete steps to protect the deterrent from the fallout of the deal, like setting up a dedicated LIF facility are not being taken .

In fact, from what Arun says, signals are that facilites like CAT instead of being strengthened are being dismantled. Such a shame. Espacially when table top lasers of petawatt power will be available soon at the rate at which laser technology is developing. This will make a credible LIF program all the more easy to achieve with determination. Also imagine the boost experimental physics will get with such a program.

Somehow a large section of the elite seem to believe that money alone counts for a nation. Well, what when the next Ghazni/Ghori comes ? Such an entity need not even be Islamic. Of course, licking the boot of such a Ghazni/Ghori implicitly rather than explicitly is perfectly acceptable for the "economy is everything" elite. Pity that Bhishma pitamaha has kind of jumped into this bandwagon.

[sraj]

On non-NSG Uranium:

2. Both Namibia and Niger have NOT ratified so far. Incentives need to be created for both to continue on this path. (btw, the US and UK have also NOT ratified, because Pelindaba covers Diego Garcia).

Just to amplify the above comment.

Anytime US pressurises Namibia or Niger to ratify Pelindaba (which you can bet they will do) -- Namibia and Niger can come back by asking US why it has not ratified Protocol I and II of Pelindaba.

Result: Stalemate......since the US cannot ratify Pelindaba without giving up its right to station nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia!!

[NRao]

Selling equipment generates one time economic activity for seller that reactor will generate economic value in India worth 100x of its cost.

Our domestic companies would also be able to supply components and EPC services for other countries capitalizing on labor arbitrage and talent pool. Remember its civilian business and no restrictions on trade exists once you are legally in.

The benefits doesn’t stop for India only in nuke field rest of the technology control regime also goes away with it.

I think any system where the West gets 90% profits and India 10% will fly. Else forget it. Thorium based techs are out of question. As US said India has a seat at the GNEP table. What he did not say and I am implying is that else no seat anywhere.

[NRao]

Given that current GoI has cut funds for this field, I really do not think they will go after non-NSG countries seriously. If they were serious they should have done it by now. Well, if they were serious they should have built a robust in-house system by now.

Either the chai-biscut attitude or planned suicide is the reason for the predicament.

[surinder]

123 was being offered along with idea of US-India strategic relationship, implicitly to counter China. What I do not understand is the following: If that is the aim, i.e. US aim is to build India to counter China, why make 123+Hyde such that it curtails, rather than expand, Indian nuclear capability.

Can anyone answer that? Given that I cannot find the answer, it seems that the US is lying. Since actions speak louder than words, it is trying to curtail India, rather than China. I cannot draw any other conclusion. If someone can explain me my error, I shall be most thankful.

[csharma]

Ashley Tellis had said in one interview that US does not need India to counter China. He said US tackled USSR on its own. This interview was about the nuclear deal and it appeared in Rediff. In the same interview he said that MMS govt was giving US more than what ABV was willing to give. Later he tried to retract those statements but Rediff stood by the interview.

[surinder]

Ashley Tellis had said in one interview that US does not need India to counter China. He said US tackled USSR on its own. This interview was about the nuclear deal and it appeared in Rediff. In the same interview he said that MMS govt was giving US more than what ABV was willing to give. Later he tried to retract those statements but Rediff stood by the interview.

Ah. That makes sense. Ashley Tellis slipped, I mean spoke. If you could find the link, it would be most kind of you.

[amit]

This should go to the psy-op thread. Amit-babu is just looking at his fat pocket and want to make it fatter by bidding for some crumbs thrown by the US multinationals. (So wining and dining the elite class with free flow of green-back is going on pretty well.) If the US is so interested in checking China then they can pass another bill making Hyde act non applicale to 123 deal.
If China rises to challange US, then its US' interest to counter China. We'll go along as long as we don't get used as a broom.

Kati,

Can you elaborate on how Amit Babu stating the obvious - that is Comrade Karat is more concerned about China's position in the global pecking order rather than India's - is tantamount to "bidding for some crumbs thrown by the US multinationals"?

Please don't get into the trap of enemy's, enemy is my friend syndrome. It's a self defeating hypothesis.

How do you explain this point raised by Amit Babu:

The politburo members of CPM, including some members of Parliament, are whisked away from the airport in Beijing to an unknown destination with no information of their arrival, departure or schedule to the Indian embassy!

Remember these poliburo worthies do not visit China in their personal capacities, they go as representatives of India's political elite. And so their travel plans, especially in a country like China is the responsibilty of the Indian Embassy.

And do you deny this:

Given Karat’s deep concern for China’s strategic interest today, let us recall that CPM supported China when it attacked India in 1962 and it rejoiced when China exploded its first nuclear device.

Ironically, the CPM did not support the government, let alone rejoice, when India imploded its nuclear device in 1998.

Do note that the "bourgeois running dog of capitalism" Amit Mitra, has pointed out succinctly the hypocracy of Comrade Karat and his coterie within the CPI(M). (Fortunately not all CPI-M leaders belong to this China bootlicking group).

It's easy to pass judgment on others. Off course every public figure who thinks 123 may not be too bad for India is either a traitor, or is running for crumbs from US mulitnationals etc.

And people like Comrade Karat are uber Nationalists. The last part needs to be reiterated on every page of this thread lest people, being ignorant that they are, don't notice the obvious.

[svinayak]

Ashley Tellis had said in one interview that US does not need India to counter China. He said US tackled USSR on its own. This interview was about the nuclear deal and it appeared in Rediff. In the same interview he said that MMS govt was giving US more than what ABV was willing to give. Later he tried to retract those statements but Rediff stood by the interview.

Ah. That makes sense. Ashley Tellis slipped, I mean spoke. If you could find the link, it would be most kind of you.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/19inter1.htm

The Rediff Interview/Dr Ashley Tellis

Why Vajpayee didn't sign the nuclear deal

July 19, 2006

Ashley Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC. He worked overtime along with United States Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran to seal the India-US nuclear agreement.

A native of Mumbai, Dr Tellis -- now an American citizen -- was in New Delhi on the occasion of the first anniversary of the historic July 18, 2005 agreement.

At a time when India has said it won't agree to any new conditions from the US, Dr Tellis -- not one to mince words -- tells Senior Associate Editor Onkar Singh how the Vajpayee government missed the opportunity to seal the deal and how the US can handle China without India's support.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. So, what are the US motivations behind this nuclear deal?

It is not we who wanted to snatch the deal. It was India that had been asking for such a deal for the last five years. Even the (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee government wanted to have a nuclear agreement.

Why was no deal struck then with the Vajpayee government?

The deal could not be reached because the Vajpayee government did not offer much to the US in exchange for the agreement. We got more from the government of (Prime Minister) Dr Manmohan Singh.

What is it that you wanted from the Vajpayee government but could not get?

I am afraid I cannot answer this question.

Did Dr Singh cave in easily?

I would not say that. There were long discussions before the agreement was reached. These discussions went on for a long time in Delhi and Washington. Under Secretary Burns led the American delegation in the discussion and the Indian side was led by the then foreign minister (K) Natwar Singh, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan and officials of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Has Dr Singh caved in...

There is no question of Dr Singh caving in.

India has got a deal that it would not have got in the past or in the future.

Maybe India would have had better bargaining powers five years from now.

Maybe India would have been in worse conditions than it is today. Everything would have depended upon what was offered to us in exchange for what India wanted.

Are you confident that the nuclear bill will be passed by both Houses of the US Congress?

The bill has to be passed before November. It may not be passed in its current form but with a better framework. Some of the key issues may have to be redrafted. And improvements may have to be carried out.

The bill has to be passed by the present Congress that will be dissolved in November 2006 and hence the bill has to be passed before that. Since this Congress took up the bill, it must pass it as well.

So the United States is more interested in safeguarding its own interests.

It applies both to India as well as to the United States. Both countries are safeguarding their interests.

Is there a clause in the bill to ban nuclear tests under the treaty?

There is no such clause but under US law, barring the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, if any other country tests a nuclear device then sanctions would have to be applied.

Will the treaty fall if India conducts a nuclear test?

I won't say it will, but it could.

Is the US trying to balance out China by having strong relations with India?

The US does not need India. We can balance China on our own. We did the same to the Soviet Union.

What happens to the supply of uranium in case the US backs off?

In that case there is an open market for you and you can buy from any other sources the same material that the US was supplying to India.

[csharma]

Surinder,
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/19inter1.htm

There is no such thing as a free lunch. So, what are the US motivations behind this nuclear deal?

It is not we who wanted to snatch the deal. It was India that had been asking for such a deal for the last five years. Even the (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee government wanted to have a nuclear agreement.

Why was no deal struck then with the Vajpayee government?

The deal could not be reached because the Vajpayee government did not offer much to the US in exchange for the agreement. We got more from the government of (Prime Minister) Dr Manmohan Singh.

What is it that you wanted from the Vajpayee government but could not get?

I am afraid I cannot answer this question.

Did Dr Singh cave in easily?
I would not say that. There were long discussions before the agreement was reached. These discussions went on for a long time in Delhi and Washington. Under Secretary Burns led the American delegation in the discussion and the Indian side was led by the then foreign minister (K) Natwar Singh, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan and officials of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Has Dr Singh caved in...
There is no question of Dr Singh caving in.

Is the US trying to balance out China by having strong relations with India?
The US does not need India. We can balance China on our own. We did the same to the Soviet Union.

[csharma]

People would want to know what is it that the MMS govt has given the US which the ABV govt did not.

[derkonig]

People would want to know what is it that the MMS govt has given the US which the ABV govt did not.

MMS must have offered complete CRE on our nukes + signing of CTBT+FMCT+NPT +unkil's custody & permission to use(ala Jalashwa) for our nukes as a package deal

ABV would have never compromised on national interest & strategic issues.

[shyam]

MMS must have offered complete CRE on our nukes + signing of CTBT+FMCT+NPT +unkil's custody & permission to use(ala Jalashwa) for our nukes as a package deal

In return, uncle must have offered nobel prize for economics to MMS.

[amit]

People would want to know what is it that the MMS govt has given the US which the ABV govt did not.

MMS must have offered complete CRE on our nukes + signing of CTBT+FMCT+NPT +unkil's custody & permission to use(ala Jalashwa) for our nukes as a package deal

ABV would have never compromised on national interest & strategic issues.

You should get your facts straight Derkonig. The needing permission to use Jalashva strawman has been discredited comprehensively. Perhaps you should check this. You'll find more details in BRF itself.

Remember one strawman can make all your other points look like strawmen as well.

[Arun_S]

Even if India tests and they put sanctions there is no way they can take the power plants/hardware back or stop the supply immediately. Technically and commercially it is not possible. Also most of the imported reactors would be financed by exporting country, sanctions would mean that they loose that equity money (aka Dabhol/Enron/GE). Even the reactors and hardware Indian imported pre Smiling Bhudhha are being run with imported fuel supplies on the basis of safety concerns etc. On top of it, we would have a significant stockpile, technology and capacity to ease the pain through transition.

1. First, they sell India the equipment. Then the Indian budgetary constraints whittles down India's indigenous capabilities, to the extent that whatever talent pool is left is hard pressed to run and maintain even those reactors outside the separation plan in civil side. They cant run the new reactors for which they have no experience compounded by manpower shortages. Plus, the hypothetical imported reactors are different designs, with which the native (sic) Indians are unfamiliar with. It takes ~5 years of hand holding to master a new reactor design. The case of Kudankulam is good benchmark. Getting a reactors operators accredition takes 3-5 years. In CANDU's case, the exercise to obtain complete indigenization was excruciatingly painful, and lasted nearly a decade. You may not have forgotten the progress (or lack thereof ) in late 70's.

2. Then, they cite the breakage of clauses of the NSG deal to stop fuel supplies. If everything was so hunky-dory, what happened to the Tarapur (TAPP 1 & 2) fuel supplies? In this case, other suppliers could step in because no commitment to them was broken! Further, in the case of TAPP 1 & 2, there was no overt objections raised by the US. In the new hypothetical scenario, there will be strenuous efforts from the US to stop ANY supplies to the Indian reactors. In any case, the Hyde Act puts a stop to this in its explanatory notes.

3. Running the reactors on indigenous supplies will deplete/erase India's "significant stockpile", thus foreclosing the FBR and AHWR options, and crippling the strategic program permanently.

Also most of the imported reactors would be financed by exporting country, sanctions would mean that they loose that equity money (aka Dabhol/Enron/GE)

How can you be so sure at this stage as to the details of the funding? It could also involve sizable Indian participation in the funding!

Anyhow the strategic program is funded through defense budget and budgetary support for civilian program depends on the need and reserves of NPCL/BHAVANi which are running well over a billion each IIRC.

Bullshit, what are you smoking to conjure this? BARC, IGCAR/MAPP, and the U enrichment plant at Rattehalli are central to the strategic program, and they have been hit hard by the budgetary constraints. The decision to add an additional few thousands centrifuges at Rattehalli has been put off because of these constraints. These are supported by DAE funds and not from the defense budget, with the exception of the ATV reactor project in IGCAR.

India is not making any commitment to any country that it'll not test nuclear devices in future. The commitment would only involve material imported from those countries would not be used for strategic program which is fair IMO.

Sure, India has made no such tacit promise. But its various actions like the 123/NSG goal and its whittling down of strategic assets tacitly points in that direction. Nobody said that India cannot test even after signing the 123/NSG deal. But then again, going by that train of logic, there is nothing stopping anybody from going to the top of a tall building and jumping, especially if one is determined to do so. And MM Singh provided GOI funding of lobbyists to help pass the Hyde Act on US terms not Indian.

Burn can say what he wants, Pranav also said a lot of things what you believe is your choice. About FMCT/CTBT/Missile, I don't believe it is possible for any nation to force this on us

1. There's a huge difference between Burns and Pranab.
Have you even read the Hyde Act and its objectives? It is the clearest statement of intent published as of date, which explicitly states the desire to cap India's nuclear program/deterrent. By subscribing to the Hyde act, India tacitly subscribes to this theory too! Since many including Bala at el are uninformed, let me cite the Act and relevant Sections.

• A. The Hyde Act envisages (Section-109) India to jointly participate with the U.S. in a programme involving the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to further nuclear non-proliferation goals. To go a bit further, the Hyde Act requires the U.S. to "encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty."
  
  B. Further, if one goes through the Hyde Act, the MTCR is brought into the picture without relevance (but with a specific objective) (so much for fluffy statement like 123/Hyde is about power and has no military relavence). Is this proof enough of the FMCT/Missile cap? Now lets's get specific. The Act draws a NEW distinction between an "MTCR adherent" and a "unilateral adherent" to expressly keep India within the sanctions purview of Section 73 of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. That section decrees a wide spectrum and crippling trade and other sanctions in case MTCR-controlled items are transferred. But in keeping with MTCR's status as a cartel that regulates transfers outside the league but not within, Section 73 is not applicable to any export "that is authorized by the laws of an MTCR adherent" or is for "an end user in a country that is an MTCR adherent."
  
  C. The Hyde Act's Section 107 explicitly states: "Congress finds that India is not an MTCR adherent for the purposes of Section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act." In singling out India, the Hyde Act goes beyond the Arms Export Control Act, which defines an "MTCR adherent" as either "a country that participates in MTCR or that, pursuant to an international understanding to which the United States is a party, controls MTCR equipment or technology in accordance with the criteria and standards set forth in MTCR." India cannot "participate" in MTCR despite India's voluntary adherence to the MTCR guidelines, which have been conveniently brushed aside.
  
  D. While the MTCR has treated China differently, the Hyde Act demands through its Section 104(b)(6)(B) that India tow the MTCR's current guidelines and "practices," followed by an exemplarily astounding statement requiring that a "unilateral adherent" is also required to abide by "any subsequent changes to the MTCR guidelines and annex." The dangers to the Indian missile program stemming from an open-ended Indian commitment have been underlined by the move of some MTCR states to institute what they call the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. This is a missile related NPT. Chellaney and Bharat Karnad have cried themselves hoarse on these issues!
  
  E. Sections 104G(i) is tantamount to an FMCT, and, Section 104(H)(i)-(iii) IS TANTAMOUNT TO ASKING INDIA TO SUBMIT ITS WEAPONS DESIGNS.
  
  F. The most galling part in an already inflammatory Act is Section 110(5), the act seeks to hold India to a bizarre standard for continuation of cooperation by mandating a cutoff of all exports "if an Indian person engages in transfers that are not consistent with NSG or MTCR guidelines". The act's Section 110(5) defines the term "Indian person" as encompassing both entities and individuals (including "non-Indian nationals") under India's jurisdiction. COULD NOT SUCH A PERSON BE FABRICATED OR PLANTED??

2. So, judging by the above, what's the difference between the Hyde Act and the Treaty of Versailles?

3. Have you heard of the quote by Dean Rusk (JFK's Secy of State) - "Once you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

[Sanku]

Arun, You have made a lot of points about hyde act and NPT which have other side to it . US always had legal basis of putting sanctions on nations (Non-P5) which are developing nuclear weapons and in any case it doesn't need any legal basis.

This is where the pro-deal arguments start becoming ridiculous in the extreme. When the logic clearly states that Hyde act is the act and 123 is the paper cover on it -- the counter is "oh US is great son of god; it can do whatever it wants sans the legalese anyway why bother"

In which case why is it asking us to sign 123? And why does CTBT and other alphabet soups come out of US.

Hey its the hyper power why does it need laws in international arena.

People should think about that for some time instead of trying hard to defend the indefensible. It shall make the time spent on BRF actually useful rather than keep going around in a rut.

1) -- All contracts in India especially the ones that would be developed in private sector would be awarded on global tender basis as is the norm, i don't think anyone would or could get a free ride on India's expense.
2) -- Since US is helping India get through I would assume that there would be a Govt to Govt deal at least initially for a few reactors.

How on earth do those two statements reconcile

On one hand global tenders and on the other govt to govt deal? So even you agree that some reactors are payment right?

Further whether you, I or anyone else "think" a country can or can not get a free ride on some one expenses is too little a bulwark in case of things going down.

What we need is the bulwark to be credible and easily understood; not based on an assumption.

India is not making any commitment to any country that it'll not test nuclear devices in future. The commitment would only involve material imported from those countries would not be used for strategic program which is fair IMO.

India is -- by signing 123 which clearly says domestic laws are paramount -- even Rice has said that India is.

Secondly the question of not using material for strategic program is superficial analysis. The question is when all support -- technical know how; spare parts; uranium for the imported white elephants dry up post the test what then?

Even if India tests and they put sanctions there is no way they can take the power plants/hardware back or stop the supply immediately. Technically and commercially it is not possible.

They dont need to take back the power plants; just stop supporting them. That will be enough. There is no cost to them.

Also most of the imported reactors would be financed by exporting country, sanctions would mean that they loose that equity money (aka Dabhol/Enron/GE).

Ah this is when I wish abhishekcc was around to spill the beans on Dabhol in great detail. Dabhol plant is still in Indian territory but is worse than useless.

Secondly it is bit of stretch to assume that the reactors will be financed by exporting country -- and even if they are -- the finance is likely to run separately to the sanctions. So even if the support for the reactors goes -- how will that free up GoI from paying for the reactors?

In any case when it comes to money game -- will the US really bother about money to achieve geo-political goal.

We are the ones will all the balls in a vice and what do they have at stake? Some liquid cash? (note I dont mean overall profit)

Even the reactors and hardware Indian imported pre Smiling Bhudhha are being run with imported fuel supplies on the basis of safety concerns etc. On top of it, we would have a significant stockpile, technology and capacity to ease the pain through transition.

I think Arun_S already demonstrated how in lack of external support the stockpile will get eaten up. Thats precisly the point. The stock pile is insufficient for both LWR and PHWR and 3 cycle program and bums.

And pre similing Buddha didnt have anything as draconian as 123 in place -- we still paid a very heavy price -- what will happen post 123?

I am still looking for more data etc on this cut in Budget to find out what actually happened.

I think what happened is clear despite any spin UPA may put on it.

Burn can say what he wants, Pranav also said a lot of things what you believe is your choice. About FMCT/CTBT/Missile, I don't believe it is possible for any nation to force this on us

So you want us to believe what you "believe" in but not what the facts on the grounds are as clearly expressed by a ranking official of GoTUS with authority on the matter.

And why would we want to delude ourselves as such ?

I do not think India is making any commitment to any nation that it'll not test. They have been clear from the start that it is India's sovereign right to decide.

Can you please point to one line in any agreement which says that -- "we reserve strategic right to test"? OTOH I can point out many lines to the contrary. What you think matters only if it has any basis in reality as opposed to your dream world.

If there was long term planning why NDA didn't retest in next 5 years since Hydrogen bomb which you accept came out dud?

Its term ran out by 2003 by which time the new design was ready?

These are your political views which you are entitled to, I would not argue with these.

What Arun_S said are facts; not political views; and even if they are there are correct views and those obtained by smoking weeds. Thus all "view" are not necessarily equal since they are all "views".

[ShauryaT]

For Arun_S:

People on the forum constructing imaginary bomb related LIF experiments at CAT is no different from Pakistanis inducting imaginary F-22s into the PAF.

Arun: I think you can guess, where is this being said. I will leave it to you, to respond here or ignore and/or delete this post entirely.

All I will say is, the folks who have left the forum because they thought that BRF is becoming an echo chamber are grouping to create what another echo chamber?

Contrasting views are the essence of debate. Can we all grow up and leave our personal egos aside and state your views, in what you believe to be the national interest.

You guys are reading this forum but refuse to put your views across here. One statement by a Ramana or Arun_S or Shiv or a ban from diligent rule follower Rakesh, ruffles egos of members up so much that they leave in a huff and puff.

Yes, The admins are gods of this forum but how long can even a God resist the call of truth? The Gods may slaughter you a few times but I will tell you from personal experience, it is possible to change the nature of these gods on some issues but a pre-requisite is that you post on this forum and let your views be known.

IMO: Folks who think they are apolitical et al, have not yet grown up or reflected enough on, what that statement means.

Apologies, if I have exceeded my brief, but have been watching the tamasha for quite some time now.

[Sanku]

Now that was a mysterious post!!! I am sure one of the people being called in was some one fond of quoting Ghalib.

But I would say one thing -- a echo chamber is fine if one opinion has won its way due to the fact that it was on the correct side of reality -- and I believe BRF does not allow things to turn into echo chambers merely by shouting power alone. (and I am not pandering to Admins)

But argument for the sake of diversity is also self defeating in a critical area such as national security -- perhaps people should also take the next step -- not only debating skills - but also the ability to change their minds when up against better grounded POVs.

[amit]

Contrasting views are the essence of debate. Can we all grow up and leave our personal egos aside and state your views, in what you believe to be the national interest.

Shaurya,

The growing up has to be on both sides of the divide. Non majoritarian (I'm taking the liberty of inventing this word, am sure you understand what it means) views have invited all manner of adjectives.

From traitors, pandering to US masters, arse lickers et al.

Surely these have stop also before good debate can take place to ensure that BRF does not turn into an echo chamber?

Triumphalist posts (I must add that the really serious posters and Admins can never be accused of making these posts) extolling penance and repentance for holding contarian views don't make for good debate.

JMT and I hope I haven't exceeded my brief as a ordinary newbie poster.

[Sathish_A]

Arun saar,

I can't understand, why we all are whining and crying about this deal capping this and that. I say lets sign the damn deal by excluding all our reactors built/being built and nuclear research centers out of this deal and its claws.

Since all those morons are talking about how this deal will provide us with cheap and clean power, why don't we ask big massa firms to built and operate these nuke plants and sell power to us at rates, which is viable for us and cheap onleee. (remember Dhabol power project)

We don't give a damn, if they run out of fuel or go bankrupt or being watched by IAEA...and if we let go one of our patakas, the heat will be in their a$$.

I am sure the very idea of this proposal will make all these karporate's and their lifafa bertherns to $hit in their pants and to add more spice we set a target date to reach power generation capacity either by nuclear or coal powered plants.

Lets see how these goras will react to climate aspects. I say bring all the issues under one hut, for them its should be "my way or no way"

[ShauryaT]

Non majoritarian (I'm taking the liberty of inventing this word, am sure you understand what it means) views have invited all manner of adjectives.

From traitors, pandering to US masters, arse lickers et al.

Surely these have stop also before good debate can take place to ensure that BRF does not turn into an echo chamber?

OK, some have used these words, I detest it. I have been called a traitor, a hindu basher, person with an agenda and so on, did hurt but leaving in a huff and puff is not the answer. It is only an indicator of defeat. The admins have called for restraint many times, but on a highly emotive issue these petty things go on.

If the folks who use these adjectives, without substantiation are st*pid, the folks who take offense to these adjectives and LEAVE should be called what?

Only way to shape an argument in an open forum is to stay engaged!

[SaiK]

Just wen.... Seems that the S1 shaft was meant for a 100kt yield. So, that was probably what the device would have been designed for. In which case there might have been a thin secondary tamper/ thin radiation case. In other words, the design was not meant to be conservative. ..prematurely disintegrate giving just 45kt. ..ervative in design even if yield/weight ratio is somewhat compromised.

well.. i have a diff theory on the designs. normally shafts would be derated to 50% of its capability for explosion tests. if the premise holds good, then I would say the secondary did function to its full!~..(given that existed for the intended walla & its a scale-down version) and the 45KT is pucca! to its design intend.



On your other post, u r 100% on the dot. Its all stealth mode planning and hidden to civilian analysis, and hence we have to guess everything to be going well planed.

But this govt. has started to show what they mean to our deterrence by their intention to cut nuke's legs.

[amit]

Only way to shape an argument in an open forum is to stay engaged!

I agree with you 400 per cent on this. You will also notice that I have Teflon armour, which I put on before posting on certain threads.

[Sanku]

I say bring all the issues under one hut, for them its should be "my way or no way"

If we had people at helm remotely capable of doing anything close to what you mention would we be taking time off from our well paying jobs to whine on BRF?

[satya]

No ordinary deal

In the grand stand of world politics, the chances of India’s tortoise like victory against China are fancied by all — except the Chinese and the Indian communists. Many may imagine that Chinese prosperity is based on selling millions of plastic Hanumans to India and rubber sandals and bath brushes to Wal Mart. Not so. China’s huge trade surplus comes from manufacturing based on technology purchases unfettered by the 123 clause, utilised to manufacture computers, electronic goods, medical and diagnostic equipment and aerospace parts

In 2001, China imported and paid for 227 hi-tech and dual use licenses which jumped to 7,800 in 2007, while India’s slumped from 574 in 2001 to 356 in the same period. Not surprisingly China’s high-technology industrial output went from 250 billion Yuan in 1999 to 1750 billion Yuan in 2005.

Since the Americans strengthened their Atomic Energy Act in 1978 with the NNPA, they followed up with the Export Administration Act in 1979, which was re-validated in 2004. As a result no American company has replied to an Indian hi-tech tender for 29 years. The consequences have been calamitous. Clever Indian scientists have often used Russian alternates or acquired European equivalents, at unreasonable cost. In 1992 in the high-tech electronic warfare field, European and Indian PSUs quoted Rs 23 crore for an EW set for the Navy. At the time the most advanced set in India was an American one imported in the German HDW submarine with an obviously fiddled End-User certificate. That set was acquired for Rs 10 crore. Fortunately, the Israelis entered the market at Rs 11 crore and saved the day. The absence of American competition in the high technology arena will cripple our rate of advance. The Deal seeks to give India a level playing field and it is unimaginable why politics should intrude into what is clearly a matter of technology, costs and national security.

[merlin]

All I will say is, the folks who have left the forum because they thought that BRF is becoming an echo chamber are grouping to create what another echo chamber?

Yep, all the usual suspects are there and now its getting ugly (OFBJP and all that)