Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 07:55

OK may I add some more masala here?

How to cheat on the deal? I am no nuclear physicist - but maybe I could make good cheat or agent provocateur

How does one go about cheating the US after signing the deal?

Very simply - assume that
a) we get enriched Uranium fuel
b) It forms some Plutonium
c) We want to extract some of the Plutonium and divert it
d) return spent fuel later and pretend nothing has happened

How would we go about doing that? Assuming that we can play a game of producing identical looking fuel rods from our own Uranium stocks and play any other cheating games?

Specifically, how would the "loads and loads of spare fuel" that the "Obama" amendment refuses to allow help in cheating?

The obvious and non detailed reply is that there must be methods of cheating and all safeguards are related to the need to prevent cheating.

Specifically, how much "goodwill" is there in agreeing to supply fuel - versus the chances that someone will cheat?

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 20 Jun 2008 08:00

shiv, the other part of the "no-skimming" deal is that this is necessary to put the big Eastern Hemisphere Pu dump in India. While some call this turning India into the new Yucca Mountain, others (translation: kgoan) point out why this is absolutely priceless in the long term.

In the long term, if the spent fuel can be re-used in India's reactors, then that would be worth gigabucks in terms of Uranium cost saved, but it really requires a lot of trust before the nations of the world will allow this to be done.

So yes, trust has to be built for a long time. OTOH, India is free to set up separate military enrichment/ Pu collection plants to accumulate the weapon fuel.

The temporary downside is that the civilian reactors will no longer supply the Pu for the military program. Do I get this right?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 20 Jun 2008 08:02

Vaguely remember the 'reprocessing' issue being a big one, a huge concession (said Nick Burns) that India managed to wrest under AK's leadership.

So if India retains right to reprocess spent fuel on the civilian side, the reproc facility too obviously has to be civilian and under safeguards too, I guess. And since we're so good at the reproc thing, some fear we may endup reprocessing more waste than we produce coz yucca mountain could be shipped here in installments.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 08:05

enqyoob - that is the other bit that I have not followed in great detail. I get the sense that (as you indicate) all the spent fuel will remain in India and not go back (to the US at least)

On an unrelated note - India seems to have done some work in doing nothing with spent fuel - I mean all that Tarapur fuel that is apparently lying un reprocessed - and "uncheated" if you like.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Jun 2008 08:11

Yes N^3, civilian spent fuel will be off limits to military FBRs. However, we are allowed to grandfather the tons of spent fuel we have accumulated and will accumulate even in reactors that may be designated "civilian" up until the date the safeguards kick in.

The separation is only as ironclad as India's relationship and power projection vis a vis US and their ilk. Unkil can invent reasons to call India as a violator even when reasons don't exist and Unkil can look the other way when convenient. Fundamentally, this puts us much closer in terms of strategic ties with the US, leaving us with far fewer global issues where India can refuse to take a stand. That's one of the heartburns of some deal opponents. What people don't realize is that as India becomes more powerful, it WILL have to take a stand on every major global issue. Being in close embrace with Unkil does not mean you dance to his tunes, just that you find things to trade off when you need to disagree with Unkil.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 20 Jun 2008 08:27

enqyoob wrote: For that matter, McCain may just order the B-2s to bomb all Indian nuclear facilities.{comment: are these kind of statements meant to 'raise' the level of debate?}
......................
If India tests, then the NSG will feel extreme pressure at home to cut off all nuke cooperation with India. Whether this results in a cut-off of this of that, depends on the perception of interests, and pressures, by the particular NSG nations at that time. But I think this issue is better left quietly as far as possible. {comment: in 1998, when the US slapped sanctions on India, it had to strain mighty hard to build a coalition even among the P5 to follow those sanctions. Why: because there was no basis in international law for sanctions; there was only a basis in US domestic laws. Russia signed the Kudankulam deal with India in June 1998, thumbing its nose at the US one month after the tests. France was soon straining at the leash. This whole deal is designed to change that by creating a basis in international law for multilateral sanctions (starting with the 45-nation NSG cartel) and thereby raise the cost of future Indian testing manifold}.

In any event, yelling that no nuclear agreement is possible unless the world explicitly says: "India, please test, we all want to watch", is rather counterproductive, to put it mildly.{comment: no one is asking for that. This is a domestic debate amongst Indians on whether the threat of a $100 billion investment in civilian nuclear power being immobilised through multilateral sanctions raises the cost of future Indian testing prohibitively, and if so, are the benefits from this deal worth the effective giving up of the testing option. The strategic fuel reserve that Bush committed to in Delhi on March 3, 2006 and which finds explicit mention in the 123 is relevant to this question -- the debate here is whether Hyde Act provisions (Obama etc) and the fact that it is not clear how India can enforce this US commitment makes it a a useless commitment}.

Concern in the Indian establishment is understandable. For the first time, there is going to be a "civilian" vs "military" nuke program, instead of one BARC running everything. So there will be new ppl with phoren affiliations stomping all over the civilian facilities, making bigger bucks than the loyal civil servants and scientists of the govt. nuclear facilities. No doubt there will be severe resentment. Soon there will also be a "whoosh" sound as many of them fly away to take up lucrative posts in the new companies. The military program will have trouble recruiting and keeping the best, until they hike the benefits to world class levels. {comment: this is and should be a legitimate concern. We all know that India has limited resources, and any GoI actions which raise the cost of meeting India's security needs are tantamount to not meeting India's security needs -- something that any GoI will and should have to answer for}.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Jun 2008 08:30

Gerard wrote:
The second most powerful economy of the world, is nowhere close to the same corresponding rank, in strategic power
Yet Japan's core interests are accommodated by the international system. It doesn't have to throw its military weight around. It doesn't have to brandish nukes. It retains those options however.

Only by being subservient to the core interests of the west and the total compromise of its sovereignty and the outsource of their security interests. It does not have the "option" of throwing its military weight around, even if capable. It does not have the "option" to act and build this capability.

Long term, its only effective option is to be either a pawn in the US game or transfer allegiance to China. A break out is possible, only if the west is defeated.

If by core interests, you mean economic then true, as long as the "globalized" world keeps humming, it is in US interests to keep the global engine running as smoothly as possible. But, make no mistake, on who is the biggest benefactor of this global engine? As the motions of the global engine continue humming, it is US soft power that influences Japan and other countries, moulding the views of generations, slowly. The effect of all this is felt for generations to come - as is being evidenced with the near complete destruction of the Indian systems by the British.

CIA psy ops, probably had as much to do with the defeat of Japan as the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 20 Jun 2008 08:35

all the spent fuel will remain in India and not go back (to the US at least)

Not only that.. once India is "approved", India becomes a convenient site to centralize protected, "safeguarded" re-processing.

I will tell you my SENSE of a lot of the reason motivating at least some US ppl towards this deal: The ONLY way they see to have any chance of minimizing the leakage of Pu etc to the Pakis (I mean terrorists/ non-state actors who completely destroy the Deterrence social etiquette of MAD) is to do complete, conservation-law accounting down to almost molecular level. IOW, account for every milligram from mining to ultimate decay down to lead.

Ppl in India will of course laugh at this stupid American notion that they can do such things using technology, and instead would prefer to depend on "chalta hai" and "Bhavitavyam Bhavedeva". But Americans are like that onlee - they figure that given enough time, technology will solve the problem.

The safeguards are mostly to account for all the fuel, down to the stuff stuck to the pipes around bends in the piping, so that the uncertainty in the accounting is reduced to milligram level even at a huge plant.

Same with the reprocessing/ storage locations: they don't want it to be done at several places. Instead, they want it all to be brought to centralized locations. One in India, one maybe in US (Yucca Mountain), and maybe one more.

Note, dear BRFees, that I am just presenting what I have heard (cannot provide urls, sorry). This does not mean that there aren't conspiracies afoot, so pls don't stop the

on account of me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 08:45

sraj wrote: Barack Obama's legacy weighs down U.S.-India nuclear deal
1. The first amendment was an innovative insertion that imposed fetters on uranium-poor India’s access to fuel, restricting such imports to “reasonable reactor operating requirements.”

Brahm Chellaney says India is "Uranium poor."

Some people have been saying that India has plenty of Uranium. Who is correct?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 08:57

ShauryaT wrote:
Gerard wrote: Yet Japan's core interests are accommodated by the international system. It doesn't have to throw its military weight around. It doesn't have to brandish nukes. It retains those options however.
Only by being subservient to the core interests of the west and the total compromise of its sovereignty and the outsource of their security interests. It does not have the "option" of throwing its military weight around, even if capable. It does not have the "option" to act and build this capability.

With respect ShauryaT - India's efforts at NOT being subservient to the West's core interests meant that India became subservient to the core interests of the Oil rich OIC. I think the consequences of that to India and Indian society have been dealt with in detail in the islamism/Islamic extremism and Pakistan threads. It is alwalys a trade-off.

On the other and we simultaneously toed the West's line on nuclear issues by not testing in the fantastic window period we had between 1974 and 1992 when everyone with any sense and technology to test was testing nukes.

The only way in which we tried to serve our own interests was to make verbose statements pontificating the unfairness of CTBT and "how evil" nuclear weapons are etc. Now, when everyone else has stopped testing we are suddenly going into overdrive and pretending that we have not been toeing anyone's lines all these years and have "kept our sovereignty"

In reality we have not. We have accommodated every vested interest at every juncture in order to reach where we are today. it is moot whether we would have been better or worse off if we had been different - as JEM used to say "If my aunt had a d*ck she would have been my uncle"

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 20 Jun 2008 08:58

MMS gives ultimatum to Sonia that he will quit if nuclear deal does not go ahead.

MMS has said he cannot go back on nuclear deal.

news breaking on IBN

and UPA allies have indicated they do not want early elections.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 20 Jun 2008 09:01

shiv wrote:
sraj wrote: Barack Obama's legacy weighs down U.S.-India nuclear deal

Brahm Chellaney says India is "Uranium poor."

Some people have been saying that India has plenty of Uranium. Who is correct?

Anything Indian is poor by economist definition.
India has plenty of uranium but poorly mined because of the exploitation of the poor may result in the process. So its better to team with Rich nations Uranium. That is why PM cant attend rich G8 (also known as GR8 aka Great nations) as a PM of poor Uranium nation, unless we sign the dotted line.

That is simple 123 which CPM is not in agreement, pity those poor chaps.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 09:02

John Snow wrote:
shiv wrote:
Anything Indian is poor by economist definition.

Brahm Chellaney is an economist?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 09:08

Raju wrote:MMS gives ultimatum to Sonia that he will quit if nuclear deal does not go ahead.

MMS has said he cannot go back on nuclear deal.

news breaking on IBN

and UPA allies have indicated they do not want early elections.

Political drama

This is to bring things to a head and yet blame communists for bringing them to a head. Changing the subject slightly - BJP in Karnataka got sympathy votes for supprting JDS and then getting ditched.

It would be interesting to see if BJP plays the same game and "rescues" MMS for some election brownie points later.

jash_p · Post by **jash_p** » 20 Jun 2008 09:16

shiv quote;

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 2496 OK may I add some more masala here?

How to cheat on the deal? I am no nuclear physicist - but maybe I could make good cheat or agent provocateur

How does one go about cheating the US after signing the deal?

Very simple, bribe a Paki.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 20 Jun 2008 09:21

shiv wrote:Brahm Chellaney says India is "Uranium poor."

Some people have been saying that India has plenty of Uranium. Who is correct?

1. Everyone agrees that current proven reserves can generate 10000 MW for 40 years. Our current installed capacity is 3500 MW.

2. As Uranium prices have risen five-fold in the recent past, it may become worthwhile to mine addl higher cost Uranium in India.

3. Also, an energetic program of further exploration may add to the existing proven reserves.

4. Clearly, India does not currently have the Uranium to generate more than 10000 MW. Is that needed? Maybe. Maybe not.

5. If it is needed, non-NSG nations (Niger, Namibia, Uzbekistan are 3 of the top 5 producers of Uranium today and are not members of the 45-nation NSG cartel) could be a source. All public information suggests no previous GoI seriously investigated this option before 2006. Under international law, India can import non-NSG Uranium and feed it to nuclear facilities covered by facility specific IAEA safeguards.

6. Will the US oppose this using its political and economic might? Maybe, but:
i) it will not have a legal leg to stand on when it so opposes addl energy supplies to India;
ii) this action will lay bare its true agenda vis-a-vis India when it does so, and confirm what many people are saying about the real US objectives in this nuclear deal with India; and
iii) the US will pay a cost in terms of adverse impact on its relationship with India, and India's inclination to cooperate on such issues as climate change.

Why not call the US bluff? Delay this deal for a few years, and see if the US actively opposes India's entirely legal action (under international law) of trying to source non-NSG Uranium supplies.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 09:30

sraj wrote: 6. Will the US oppose this using its political and economic might? Maybe, but:
i) it will not have a legal leg to stand on when it so opposes addl energy supplies to India;
ii) this action will lay bare its true agenda vis-a-vis India when it does so, and confirm what many people are saying about the real US objectives in this nuclear deal with India; and
iii) the US will pay a cost in terms of adverse impact on its relationship with India, and India's inclination to cooperate on such issues as climate change.

Why not call the US bluff? Delay this deal for a few years, and see if the US actively opposes India's entirely legal action (under international law) of trying to source non-NSG Uranium supplies.

Good response.

But I have a point to make about the text I have quoted.

The US will definitely interfere. The US has made it clear that it will interfere with any nation on earth if that nation is taking any action that the US opposes. This action may be like prodding a sleeping dog to see if it gets up snarling. It will.

How about signing the deal and then trying to import from Niger (non NSG) as well as other NSG sources. if the US then interferes it's hand will still be shown equally clearly and we have at least ten years after signing the deal when we can ditch it and lose little. (We will merely be negotiating for 10 years IMO - no nuke plants can be set up so soon)

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 20 Jun 2008 10:12

shiv wrote:How about signing the deal and then trying to import from Niger (non NSG) as well as other NSG sources. if the US then interferes it's hand will still be shown equally clearly and we have at least ten years after signing the deal when we can ditch it and lose little. (We will merely be negotiating for 10 years IMO - no nuke plants can be set up so soon)

Shiv:

The question exercising a lot of people is whether signing the deal would slam the door shut once and for all on India's testing option, and whether giving up the testing option plus the looming FMCT thereafter compromises India's security through qualitative and quantitative capping vis-a-vis other powers.

The option of saying "balls to the deal" (as you have stated) may not be available once India signs on to the deal. Why? because (among many other things):

i) trying to take out nuclear facilities from IAEA safeguards "in perpetuity" which India signed up to voluntarily would be breaking international commitments liable to result in UNSC action (of which India is not a member); and

ii) in 1998, when the US slapped sanctions on India, it had to strain mighty hard to build a coalition even among the P5 to follow those sanctions. Why? because there was no basis in international law for sanctions; there was only a basis in US domestic laws. Russia signed the Kudankulam deal with India in June 1998, thumbing its nose at the US one month after the tests. France was soon straining at the leash.

The fear is that this whole deal is designed to change the above situation by creating a basis in international law for multilateral sanctions (starting with the 45-nation NSG cartel) and thereby raise the cost of future Indian testing manifold. Most nations will not break their multilateral commitments lightly, or if they do, will demand a much higher price from India to do so (than, for example, Russia did in 1998 when thumbing its nose at the US) for the simple reason that they themselves will be paying a significant price.

ramana often mentions the tale of the tiger and the brahmin; I am sure you know it, but here is a summary:

When a holy Brahmin releases Tiger from his cage, Tiger threatens to eat him unless he can find someone who feels the tiger's actions would be unjust. Sure of his rescue, the Brahmin is dismayed to find that the animals he encounters feel he must submit to his fate. "The tiger is your master. Face your fate and be eaten," says the elephant. "Be a man. Go back to the tiger. The world is a cruel place," says the pipal tree. The Brahmin despairs until a lowly jackal tricks the tiger into going back into the cage to show him exactly what happened. And the Brahmin "lived the rest of his life a much wiser man."

Bottomline: can this deal be signed? yes, if the US demonstrates that it does not have a hidden agenda, by:

-- as BC says, getting a clean NSG waiver (which can be contingent on India signing a safeguards agreement approved by IAEA's Board) before India takes further steps on the IAEA front; and
-- showing that the strategic fuel reserve commitment made by Bush is enforceable by India.

Otherwise, in terms of sequencing, India would be better off first calling the US bluff on non-NSG Uranium.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 20 Jun 2008 11:00

sraj wrote:

MR Srinivasan is supporting it vocally.

I would say it is a bit of Humpty Dumpty (the sitting on the fence part).
This is what Dr M.R Srinivasn wrote in a recent article, published in the Hindu.

. . .

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave a solemn assurance to Parliament in August 2007 that India’s interests would be fully protected in the 123 agreement. After many tortuous rounds of negotiations, an agreed draft 123 emerged in the early part of 2008. It is true that the 123 draft has largely met India’s concerns but there are provisions that reflect the intent of the Hyde Act and the mother act – the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
. . .

Of course, under the 123 agreement read with the Hyde Act and the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, there is a real possibility of a future administration suspending cooperation following an Indian test. No doubt the language of the 123 provides some comfort to India but nothing takes away India’s right to conduct a test if it considers it absolutely necessary, even facing the consequences of a U.S. cut-off.

. . .

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 20 Jun 2008 11:20

Concern in the Indian establishment is understandable. For the first time, there is going to be a "civilian" vs "military" nuke program, instead of one BARC running everything. So there will be new ppl with phoren affiliations stomping all over the civilian facilities, making bigger bucks than the loyal civil servants and scientists of the govt. nuclear facilities. No doubt there will be severe resentment. Soon there will also be a "whoosh" sound as many of them fly away to take up lucrative posts in the new companies. The military program will have trouble recruiting and keeping the best, until they hike the benefits to world class levels.

This is a big concern. Also, if the powers that be intend to starve the military program, this is the way to do it. One way to get around this problem is to ensure that the civilian nuclear program too, is completely under a fully state controlled monopoly like, NPCIL. Of course, this entity could tie up with Russia/France as in Kudankulam. Otherwise, besides the "whoosh" sound of people from the military program joining companies, there will also be people from the breeder and other energy programs joining various companies. We all know how much companies with all sorts of foriegn affiliations have contributed to the nations scientific and technical progress. L&T seems to be an honorable exception.

The atomic energy sector is too critical for private players to be allowed into the picture. As it is, the situation is bad with some IT/BPO types getting paid an order of magnitude more than DAE scientists.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 20 Jun 2008 13:13

This is a big concern. Also, if the powers that be intend to starve the military program, this is the way to do it. One way to get around this problem is to ensure that the civilian nuclear program too, is completely under a fully state controlled monopoly like, NPCIL. Of course, this entity could tie up with Russia/France as in Kudankulam. Otherwise, besides the "whoosh" sound of people from the military program joining companies, there will also be people from the breeder and other energy programs joining various companies. We all know how much companies with all sorts of foriegn affiliations have contributed to the nations scientific and technical progress. L&T seems to be an honorable exception.

The atomic energy sector is too critical for private players to be allowed into the picture. As it is, the situation is bad with some IT/BPO types getting paid an order of magnitude more than DAE scientists.

That is surely one of the main objectives of this nuclear deal -starve indian military nuclear program of skilled manpower.Many of the existing engineers in DAE will surely leave for greener pastures into organisations like Reliance and Tata power who are most likely to put up the imported reactors and salary which the government can never match .Just a look at the oil scene today will confirm my prediction.Most of the top executives in reliance petro and gas are from indian oil and GAIL

While there will be no actual difference in power generation percentage wise atleast for next 5-7 years the minimum time it will take for the second hand us reactors to come up and start generating what will surely happen is lot of good nuclear scientists and engineers will leave DAE BARC IGACR and join these private players offering mega bucks

That is the real us objective to starve Indian military nuclear program by siphoning of the available talent pool

stop the program by sanctions if any further test

cap the program by putting 70% reactors under safeguard

roll back the program by creating skill and talent shortage

If this nuke deal goes thru it will be a strategic blunder like nothing before

1962 is peanuts in comparison

Left is our only hope

let the government fall and let BJP come to power and do another round of test only then things will be in correct perspective

Just hope our democracy will be able to take care of itself like it did in emergency days

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 20 Jun 2008 13:20

atish Chandra

The contention that the India-US nuclear deal will open the floodgates of technology transfer to the country is largely wishful thinking and not grounded in reality. Worse, our weapons programme will be compromised

As time runs out on the India-US nuclear deal, those supportive of it are engaged in a frenetic campaign to cause the hold outs against it, notably the BJP and the Left parties, to allow its concretisation. This exercise has been facilitated by the recent statements of Mr APJ Abdul Kalam and Mr Brajesh Mishra. While the former has been supportive of the deal for some time, the latter is a recent convert.

Though the arguments for and against the deal are well known, it would, nevertheless, be useful to examine those adduced most recently by the spin doctors and assess their validity.

The protagonists of the deal repeatedly assert that it in no way restricts India's sovereign right to test, that testing has always had and will continue to have onerous consequences, and that if India feels the need to test it can always go ahead do so. This line of argumentation is seriously flawed since, as per the legislation governing the nuclear deal, notably the Hyde Act, the US is bound, consequent upon an Indian test, not only to cease all further nuclear cooperation but also to exercise the right to recall all the nuclear materials and equipment transferred to India. Thus, an Indian test conducted following the deal will have far more serious consequences than those faced after Pokhran II.

Indeed, once hooked onto the nuclear deal, the huge financial investments made and the dependency created on imported nuclear materials and plants, would make it virtually impossible for India to withdraw from the deal or test because not only would it face the costs and highly disruptive consequences of termination of cooperation, but also those of return of equipment and material. In these circumstances, to state that India is free to test after having concluded the nuclear deal is akin to stating that an individual is free to commit suicide!

The contention that the nuclear deal in no way degrades our nuclear deterrent is down right ludicrous. First, by effectively closing the door for an Indian test for all time it compromises India's capability of improving the design, yield, etc, of its warheads. This would place India at a great disadvantage as and when other countries like China and Pakistan modernise their nuclear arsenals through testing. Second, by committing India to a fast track conclusion of the FMCT, it jeopardises the country's ability to enhance its stock of weapons grade fissile material. Third, since it entails the closure of the Cirus research reactor, which contributes one-third of our production of weapons grade fissile material, it will limit the number of warheads that we can make. Fourth, placement of two-thirds of our reactors under IAEA in perpetuity safeguards will to that extent reduce our production capability of tritium -- a critical ingredient to boost the yield of nuclear warheads. Finally, it will deprive both our civil and military nuclear programmes of the benefits of synergy as it is based on their rigid separation: Something which has not been done by any nuclear weapon state except, to an extent, the US.

The argument that the non-conclusion of the nuclear deal will adversely affect our civil nuclear programme is untenable. While there will be short-term constraints due to the non-availability of processed uranium, the existing reserves are sufficient to support not only our weapons programme but also a power generation capacity of up to 10,000 MW for decades. Once these production levels are achieved, India will be in a position to tap into its thorium reserves, among the largest in the world, in order to develop a power generation capacity of up to 300,000 MW.

Accordingly, it would be unwise to allow a short term resource crunch -- the result of a go slow approach by successive Governments since the 1990s in the exploration and exploitation of indigenous uranium resources -- to cause us to enter into a deal which would mortgage in perpetuity the nature of our nuclear programme as well as our strategic and foreign policy autonomy. Noting the weakness in their argument on this score the spin doctors now quote Mr MR Srinivasan as stating that, in order for us to tap into our thorium resources, we need to have a nuclear power generation capacity of 50,000 MW and not merely 10,000 MW. They contend that this was kept unpublicised hitherto in order not to reveal India's vulnerabilities.

This argument is disingenuous. For decades our leading scientists from Bhabha onwards have been projecting a 10,000 MW capacity as being sufficient to sustain our proposed thorium cycle. It is too much to expect us to swallow a five-fold increase in this figure suddenly sprung upon the nation just prior to the conclusion of the deal. Had this been the case, our scientists would not have even looked at the thorium cycle, knowing full well that it was not sustainable.

The contention that the nuclear deal will open the floodgates of technology transfer to India is largely wishful thinking and not grounded in reality. Indeed, Article 5.2 of the much vaunted 123 Agreement categorically states that transfers of "sensitive nuclear technology" would require an amendment to that agreement and that transfers of "dual use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities will be subject to the parties' respective laws, regulations and licence policies". In other words under the nuclear deal India has not even secured full civil nuclear cooperation and transfer of technology from the US in this area will be less than complete.

It has also been made out that if Russia can contemplate a 123 Agreement with the US, India should have no compunction in doing likewise. The answer is that Russia does so as a nuclear weapon state without any of the restraints imposed on India such as a rigid separation of civil and military nuclear facilities, in perpetuity safeguards, prohibition on testing, etc.

Finally, it has been argued that non-conclusion of the nuclear deal would lead to a severe loss of face for India. This again is a weak argument. On the contrary, our not persisting with the deal for want of a consensus would enhance India's democratic credentials.

It is evident from that the arguments in support of the deal, far from being credible, are unconvincing and, regrettably, in many a case our spin doctors have been guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

-- The writer, a career diplomat, is a former Deputy National Security Adviser

ANI_ARA · Post by **ANI_ARA** » 20 Jun 2008 13:28

why cant we just privatise the civilian nuclear sector - at the same time encourage FDI to bring in necessary capital to put u the plants. At any rate we probably do not have the money to invest by ourselves. We can use our reserves in coal / hydel sectors.

when FDI is tied in big time , every one will think twice before starving us of uranium , even if we test for any reason down the road.

In many countries the civil nuclear sector is in private hands - eg Japan, France , US ect.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 20 Jun 2008 13:33

That is surely one of the main objectives of this nuclear deal -starve indian military nuclear program of skilled manpower.Many of the existing engineers in DAE will surely leave for greener pastures into organisations like Reliance and Tata power who are most likely to put up the imported reactors and salary which the government can never match .Just a look at the oil scene today will confirm my prediction.Most of the top executives in reliance petro and gas are from indian oil and GAIL

So Shankar, would that mean Reliance schemed to starve IOL and GAIL of skilled manpower. The solution is just a step above the Chinese way namely chain up the scientists to their desks or hold their family hostage. IOW our way is to make sure our DAE guys dont smell the dough and see what folks around the world of similar competencies are making and the lifestyles they are enjoying. No skin off my back, I make something well north of a hundred figures, what goes of me. There were better objections IMHO. IIRC the uno issue not a long time ago was nuclear power itself and the disconnects in the story that the GoI was trying to sell.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 20 Jun 2008 15:47

MMS goose is cooked,
CPM fails to blink

NDTV
quoting left sources have reported

Breaking News:
If the govt takes next step of approaching the IAEA, we will break with the UPA

Once we break, we will be on the other side (vote with BJP)

If the SP goes with the Congress, they have to forget the third front

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jun 2008 16:56

Raju wrote:MMS goose is cooked,
CPM fails to blink

Hmm - not so fast. Both parties are seasoned political operators. The wild card is what the BJP does. The CPM has threatened to ensure that a minority government cannot survive. The government can only be brought down by losing a vote of confidence in parliament.

If the BJP abstains - CPM goose is cooked. The BJP can then bring down the government at a time of its choosing. If the government falls now - and BJP gains power, it will look like Kaangress were cheated out and that both BJP and CPM are cheats. The public will not take kindly to that - especially when so many "bigbig" people are for the deal and the public has no clear for or against view about the deal - but clearly have views about parties and personalities.

Interesting times ahead. But there is time to sign the deal till Jan 20th. So expect more talks, bribery, wheeling and dealing. Expect the Kaangres to do its utmost to make th CPM appear like the bad guys destabilizing the country at a time of difficulty of aam junta. Given CPM's popularity - that won't be too difficult.

Just my guess.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 20 Jun 2008 17:16

Very simple, bribe a Paki.

THANK YOU, Jash! Finally some good thinking here.

Also, I know exactly why 'India is Uranium-poor". I am told that Pakistani Uranium is heavier quality - 238, whereas India's is contaminated with lighter quality 235. It seems this Indian Uranium decays quickly like onions.

I am wondering why India is unable to buy Uranium from "non-NSG sources". If India can buy (and its perfectly legal), then why can't Pakistan (i.e., Al Qaeda) and Saudi Arabia? International law is the same for India or for these places. The non-NSG sources are generally in "Believer" countries as well, so it should be quite natural to ship the stuff to Pakistan. They should be doing a glowing business, or should I say, "their business should be booming"?

This should be the perfect way to finish off the NPT etc. and it should have happened decades ago. So I suspect that there is some good reason why this may not be so easy as "why doesn't India call the bluff" etc.

In fact if this keeps up a bit longer, the world's problem with city congestion should disappear. A couple of Paki "initiatives" with "non-NSG uranium" in the centers of a few cities in Unbeliever nations, and people will get out of the cities "tout-suite" as they say say in La Paris as they exit through the Arc de Triomphe. Demand for tents should shoot up.

Perhaps this will also show why the nations of the world would have moved to seal off or regulate the supplies from non-NSG nations first. In fact, exactly how many non-NPT suppliers of Uranium are there in the world? So this proposed solution to India's nuclear fuel supply problems should perhaps be explored a little deeper to understand why India has not exploited it??

Finally, to respond to a question from sraj, who wanted to know if I was trying to raise the level of the debate here by suggesting that John McCain as POTUS may send B-2s to demolish India's nuclear plants. Of course I am, but it would be extremely difficult to raise the level of the debate here any higher. While suggesting that India call this bluff or that bluff, it is wise to see exactly how far up in the escalation chain India would be willing to go. So
1. We are now (if I am to believe some of our postors here) vastly richer than in 1968-98, and so should be able withstand any economic sanctions.
2. We are extremely smart now (we even have computers and Tata owns Jaguar and Nano!) so we should be able to shrug off any technology sanctions (since many of our facilities are already on them, it shouldn't be a whole lot worse).
3. We can simply ignore the NSG and go buy Uranium from unspecified non-NSG sources.

So what will the toothless US of A and its Al-Lies do? Economic sanctions not effective, uranium trade outside any regulations underway, NPT collapsing, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Muqtada Al Sadr, Chechnya all lining up on the Congo dockyard filling up freighters with Uranium ore as fast as the cranes will work, the mighty warships of the Indian Navy waiting offshore with their mighty nuclear-powered engines humming, the Tricolor fluttering in the Equatorial breeze, protecting this Perfectly Legal Commerce, the Somali Pirates waiting to get their weekly presents, and AQ Khan Centrifuges Inc humming away in Waziristan or Islamabad, refining the stuff for the "packages" marked with the names of various cities like "New Delhi", "Mumbai", "Varanasi", "Chennai", just to name a few (not naming the other cities in the kufr world here because like shiv said, there may be people running GOOGLE searches and getting paranoid, unlike Indian security people who are completely confident that nothing bad will happen, being always "prepared for any eventuality").

The POTUS has 2 options:
1. Send the USN to intercept these shipments. That can't be done, of course, considering the might of the Indian Navy and Somalian Pirates protecting the shipments.
2. Send the USAF to cancel out the facilities that need the Uranium. Of course, sending F-15s would not work, since we all know that the IAF's Su-30s and Jaguars will wipe them out. Also, given India's vast power and network of faithful friends all over the world, it would be impossible to base these short-range aircraft within striking range of India. So it comes down to sending B-2s since I don't know of many defences in India against attack by stealth aircraft, and the US can send those from the CONUS for missions over India.

This is why I said: "John MaCain may send B-2s to demolish Indian nuclear capabilities". I know, I know. SOOOO irrational, DESTROYS the high intellectual level of the debate on BRF. These stupid one-liners from Enqyoob!

AFAICS, this is the logical result of a conventional escalation (aka p1ssing contest) with the US, with a President who is familiar with military decision-making, and knows how it feels to hit the "FIRE" button with a target in his sights. WILL the US go down this path, instead of backing down?

Maybe they will back down and cower before the might of India, considering the vast economic consequences to the US of India getting unhappy with the US, but maybe not, because of the reasons I posted above, on WHY the US and other nations are so anxious to account for the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mines to spent fuel, down to the milligram level. The production of tents is not yet up to the level where they can accomodate the exodus from their cities, and the attendant other minor problems, of a few attacks with WMD on population centers, by entities who are not scared of the "deterrent", worry them and keep them awake at night. So I would say that this is an issue where the US or its Allies won't back down short of total nuclear war. Because total nuclear war on their cities is exactly what will result from backing down.

Indians will not see it this way - many Indians, including some who had to run away leaving all their possessions and were robbed and raped all the way out of Iraq in 1990, still don't see why the US acted so cruelly against poor dear Saddam Hussein. But it is not Indians who decide what to do about the security of the US or UQ or their other allies. Even the Russians tend to worry a bit about things that go "boom" in the cinema theatres in Moscow.

Please consider these things instead of just "staying at a high level of debate" and ignoring the ground realities facing people who actually are determined to DO something to try and prevent the worst from happening. The threat is imminent, as in maybe the next second. Or tomorrow. Or the day after.... Until all nuclear materials are completely secured, or (well... I am not going to argue the MooMoo Alternative).

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 20 Jun 2008 17:30

enqyoob wrote:

In any event, yelling that no nuclear agreement is possible unless the world explicitly says: "India, please test, we all want to watch"

People on this thread who are against 123 are basically demanding that USA sign off on the above....and on top of it some folks claim that this is "realpolitik"! "sweet dreams" to such people because they are most likely asleep. "realpolitik" would be to sign up and make sure that the political will to push the local program exists in the long term, while accumulating "waste" that can be "fuel" down the line and kickstarting the economy at a time when a large proportion of the Indian populace is young and of working age and not angry at the lack of oppurtunities....yet.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 20 Jun 2008 19:42

enqyoob wrote:

Until all nuclear materials are completely secured

People here do not seem to realize that nothing will stay static, and it is upto India to exploit
any and every oppurtunity it gets to exploit to the fullest, and grab as much fuel as we can (for cheap from the international market) before ALL fuel is under control of the NSG cartel and cancelling our military program is going to be the price for more fuel down the line -- if people think that this future is unlikely they have not wondered WHY russia would need to buy all the U from Australia and why Australia is willing to sell the U to Russia knowing fully well that Russia has more nuclear fuel than it could possibly need (stored in all the 1000s of warheads).

Anyone making arguments that India needs to open local U mines and use its own local fuel still seem to believe the figures given by Bhabha's estimate on the amount of U needed (even if the reality is the energy demands have spiked since Bhabha's estimates. However, they do not realize that in Homi Bhabha's world, the only computer that existed was the ENIAC/EDVAC (Electronic Discrete Variable Automatic Computer) and the experts of the time confidently predicted that there would be no more than a dozen computers around the world given its cost and complexity (and electricity consumption).

Do we all really believe that his estimation of India's energy demands was close what is probably REALLY is today? When a house of a well-of Indian can easily have a dozen computers and a few A/Cs running 24/7 and consuming the scarce energy while a majority cannot afford to power a light bulb? Is all of this only because Indian politicians and bureaucrats are all stupid and corrupt? Is there no chance that all of the power supply/demand crisis that we are seeing today is the result of a real (and massive) gap between supply and demand based on outdated estimates instead of current estimates of power consumption?

How do we expect to run chip manufacturing plants to build ASICS chips for future LCA avionics in Mysore or Mangalore with rolling power outage on a regular basis? The power requirements for chip fap and the kind of damage to investment that can happen even with one power outage imply that energy needs to be ABUNDANT before India can even think of locally manufacturing hi-tech items like Taiwan.....or alternatively, we can all cower in the corner so that there is no chance that anyone can every screw us over.

JMTs

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Jun 2008 19:48

NSG clearance will also allow international mining giants like BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to invest their own $$ and latest technology to extract Indian Uranium.

There is no limitation on India to stockpile its own Uranium, even if it is with foreign technology. If indeed push comes to shove and we have to test, we'd be in far better position to do so with our own massive stockpiles of Uranium in addition to foreign supplied ones.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2008 19:52

Rye, I dont know how to say this more clearly. After signing this deal there cant be a test. Its dejure bi-lateral CTBT. So all this talk about creating new stuff for later test is just that. And then if one says it can always be proofed in battle, then it means one plans for deterrence breakdown, which means the the whole nuke program was just an ego trip if it cant prevent deterrence breqkdown. Further, after the ambiguity of the results (due to simultaneous tests) of previous rounds it (proofing in battle) is a non-starter. Just think of the rumors of the 2003 preparations.

So thats why I said better lobby for NPT as there are many other advantages if one calmly thinks about it and people got upset and posted long replies to it. Under this Trishanku status we are midway with responsibilites of a nuke power(exercise restraint and caution, dont get agressive with bad neighbors) and none of the rights( contra to all the above and more)! If there were no nukes, the TSP problem is over in one week and so too the Tibet problem.

Sridhar you ask very crucial questions and might have to talk about it offline.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Jun 2008 19:57

Ramana

There is no significant incremental barriers to test with this deal. Whatever impediments we face after this deal will also be there in another form without this deal. India is moving closer to US and the Western world purely on an economical basis. We HAVE to do this to maintain our current growth. Not growing is not an option because 30 crore people have tasted benefits of improving lifestyle and will not abandon it. Increasing economic links will necessarily mean that Unkil will have powerful levers to push and prevent India from testing regardless.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2008 20:15

Rangudu wrote: Increasing economic links will necessarily mean that Unkil will have powerful levers to push and prevent India from testing regardless.

Bingo. I dont want it to be dejure. Thats all. Maybe I am too old fashioned and know the diff of dejure and defacto and know how much the US values the former.

Maybe the new generations in India, which ever never as numerous and powerful in its history, might see it differently but just want to ensure that they are not tied up by the ancien regime of this generation.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Jun 2008 20:18

^^ Ramana,

This deal also keeps the restraints in the de facto realm. There is no de jure limitation in this deal. That's where I disagree with you. If there is mention of testing restraint in ANY document/agreement India is a party to, then I'll oppose this deal. So far there is none. BTW, there are many NPAs who have written legal opinions on India's use of CANDU originated Pu for POK-1 as a de jure violation of bilateral agreement with Canada. That did not stop India then. I don't see this deal stopping a determined India in the future.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jun 2008 20:33

ramana wrote:
So thats why I said better lobby for NPT as there are many other advantages if one calmly thinks about it and people got upset and posted long replies to it. Under this Trishanku status we are midway with responsibilites of a nuke power(exercise restraint and caution, dont get agressive with bad neighbors) and none of the rights( contra to all the above and more)! If there were no nukes, the TSP problem is over in one week and so too the Tibet problem.

I said this before. Either test or join the NPT. For power generation NPT is the best. Unlimited power cooperation and fuel reprocessing and Japan style growth and money everywhere. But no independent foriegn policy.

NPT will also give a figment of peace and agreement for some time with the neighbors. Until the blackmail starts again.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2008 20:44

And not to mention Indian experts can work in IAEA etc and give sermons like South Africa's Minty ( who is all over the Indian media and websites). In fact all those international bodies will be open season in welcoming Indian experts who have toiled for so long in dim light backrooms sweating out (dim light and no A/C due to lack of fuel for power reactors) all along for the country. They also need to get their chance to be like the DOOs who caution the govt when there is a national security crisis.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 20 Jun 2008 20:58

Passing of the nuclear deal is now in the hands of the BJP. If it sides with CPI(M) then this deal can never get passed.

SP can no support deal openly with its muslim base, at most it can abstain or do a googly.

So ball is in BJP's court.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2008 21:02

Are they in govt?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 20 Jun 2008 21:03

IMO, BJP must support the deal with adequate legislative safeguards of our own - a jekyll act. What significance or impact such an act will hv down the line is unclear but its adequate face-saving for everyone concerned to proceed ahead. At the very least, the act must say explicitly that only when parliament ratifies the deal will the deal be operational and binding on India. Thus, if COTUS fails to ratify the 123, then we too will have a trapdoor. Hopefully.

If indeed the chinis are going so desperate as to rile up border incursions so brazenly to provoke an Indian reaction and thereby torpedo its NSG chances, then this deal needs a fresh re-look. IMVVHO, of course.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 20 Jun 2008 21:04

ramana wrote:Are they in govt?

a lot happened today.

please read the two 'breaking news' posts. Also CPI(M) mentioned that they do not care if MMS resigns.

Raju wrote:MMS goose is cooked,
CPM fails to blink

NDTV
quoting left sources have reported
Breaking News:
If the govt takes next step of approaching the IAEA, we will break with the UPA

Once we break, we will be on the other side (vote with BJP)

If the SP goes with the Congress, they have to forget the third front

Raju wrote:MMS gives ultimatum to Sonia that he will quit if nuclear deal does not go ahead.

MMS has said he cannot go back on nuclear deal.

news breaking on IBN

and UPA allies have indicated they do not want early elections.