India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

[ramana]

So they told hem they wll go after the miscreants with foreign accts and make them see the error of the ways.


Statements are statments. Whats in writing is what counts.

A verbal contract is not the paper its written on.

Folks all those who want to tie up India get this, it wont happen and if it happens it will be unbound.

Dont let ideology blind you to national interests. Despite whatever one is, to the outside world we are all darkie Indoos.

Go read Buchanan as to what Churchill thought of doing.


INC did a great favor in not releasing the stuff in the GOI archieves. Their allies are now revealing it as they realize the mess they are in.

[NRao]

Folks all those who want to tie up India get this, it wont happen and if it happens it will be unbound.

I think this is true .............. for the simple reason "clean, unconditional" is binary. It always has been - from day one. No brownie points for that.

Prem, "End result might suprise many" = NSG NOT granting a "clean, unconditional" waiver, for the simple reason the US was expected to deliver IF India accepted a 123 + an IAEA agreement. Again, no brownie points for that either.

This is a mess because India and the US have come to the conclusion that they can live with a third state, which is neither a NWS nor a NNWS, and the rest are all confused - since it does not have a name/acronym. The US has to twist arms to get this through, and, they will.

(Note that Saran stating that India cannot expect the West to accept Indian testing did not mean India will accept West's position. There in lies the problem - to some extent the US is looking the other way, until something snaps, or hoping that it will build (on the NPT front) on what India has given into so far. )

[Rangudu]

I'm forced to hit the pause button on my self imposed posting moratorium for this debate.

As a purely rational actor, you weigh the marginal costs vs marginal benefits of taking any action. To wit:

1. NSG waiver or IAEA safeguards or any contract/agreement is never going to be unconditional. Even your homeowners contract or apartment lease are all conditional. Heck even J18 was conditional. The key is to ask - do they cross our redlines. It is silly to walk out saying there are conditions when the conditions are "You will not proliferate nuclear weapons" or something like it. It is dangerous not to walk out when the conditions are "You shall not test nukes under any circumstance"

2. ABV's statement in 1998 was not a pure unilateral thing. It was a quasi multilateral commitment because it was in effect saying "Remove sanctions against India because we volunteer not to test again but will not sign any paper." A truer unilateral thing is the China fissile material "freeze" for which China gets a lot of credit but is not written into contracts.

3. July 18, 2005 was a bit more than ABV's commitment because it went into a joing statement with another head of state. But the marginal benefits from that clearly exceed the marginal costs

4. If the NSG waiver has the voluntary moratorium mentioned then it is a bit more of a commitment than J18 but we should debate if the marginal benefits exceed the increased costs of putting the moratorium on paper again. I believe the benefits outweigh costs once again but it is not unreasonable to argue otherwise.

5. I took only a couple of law classes but from what I remember verbal contracts are as valid as written contracts, especially when the verbal contract is documentable. Therefore if tomorrow India is invited to the G-8 with the invitation speech saying "We recognize India's moratorium blah blah blah" and then we go boom, G-8 can consider it a breach of contract and we can disagree.

At the end of day, to me as long as the NSG waiver reflects the language of the US-India 123 agreement and leaves more controversial things to bilateral agreements, it is a win for us.

[enqyoob]

deleted

[enqyoob]

Look, Dubya has also declared a moratorium on testing, despite dissing the CTBT. So why would US not sign the CTBT unless it has some intention of testing in future? Same way, India can declare moratorium, and if other countries are happy to accept a MORATORIUM as the reason why they can throw away their "sanctions" and start trading, well, that's good.

If national security demands it (and the right companies are involved), the US will test again. Likewise, if national security really demands it, the GOI will say to any "sanctions" and test. Then it is up to the other countries to either see the tests as necessary and do nothing, or be oiseules and make a big awaaz about it and re-impose sanctions.

Note that consensus is needed in the NSG. So if the NSG wants to reimpose sanctions, well, they need consensus on that too, and countries who agree with India's need to have tested, will simply continue trading with India.

Ppl need to read Indira Gandhi, not just Buchanan or some racist British colonialist sw*ne. Paraphrasing IG, who said this at a time when India was in what looked like perpetual famine:

If we test because we have to, and the NSG wants to trade with us then they will continue to trade with us. If we don't test and the NSG don't want to trade with us, then they won't trade with us.

NSG clearance only means that those countries who WANT TO TRADE WITH INDIA can trade with India. As long as the NSG clearance does not include some automatic cutoff and dire penalties to those who ignore the cutoff, there is nothing wrong with continuing India's moratorium, and have the whole world see that India has imposed a voluntary moratorium.

The real point here is that India declared a voluntary moratorium at the UN in 1999, and the NSG etc. did not budge. Now they are being forced to recognize that India has a voluntary moratorium, and they are being asked to drop their nonsense based on that.

Where is the defeat in this? Would it be victory if the NSG said:

Whereas India has declared a voluntary moratorium on testing and
whereas we all refuse to believe a word of that since the Injuns are liars....

BUT whereas the US has us by the ba*s and has threatened to crush harder,

Therefore now be it resolved that we will resume trading with India despite our better sense, because the US has won our Hearts and Minds the usual way..

Or is it a greater victory if they say:

Look, India has long-since declared a voluntary moratorium, and for me that's good enough proof of India's intentions, toss out these stupid sanctions and stuff.

The other thing is that proven nuclear weapons may be available for the asking, now that the US and Russia are once again on such sweet terms. Question is whether the nukes India can buy will be better than the ones the Russians give Syria and Cuba and Venezuela.


(Also note that voluntary moratoriums can be "paused" when there are larger interests at stake)

[ShauryaT]

At the end of day, to me as long as the NSG waiver reflects the language of the US-India 123 agreement and leaves more controversial things to bilateral agreements, it is a win for us.

I remember another Rangudu, saying something different on the lines of walkout, if condition not to test is there in NSG waiver. Maybe, My recollection is wrong, maybe you have changed your views?

[Rangudu]

I remember another Rangudu, saying something different on the lines of walkout, if condition not to test is there in NSG waiver. Maybe, My recollection is wrong, maybe you have changed your views?

Nope. Please don't cast aspersions. My views are exactly the same.

The 123 does not mention testing. It merely covers breakage clauses and how to handle them.

If the NSG "takes notice" of India's voluntary testing moratorium then it's okay. J18 had that as well.

However, if the NSG waiver says - "NSG nations will revisit contracts if India tests" or something like that then it's curtains for this deal and we walk out.

---

PS: There's a difference between a mention of the voluntary moratorium with words like "The NSG takes note of India's voluntary moratorium as a sign of xyz" and "The NSG will stop trade if India rescinds its voluntary moratorium". The former is acceptable and the latter is not.

[ShauryaT]

N: It is quite simple, if you look at it the way it is, as opposed to trying to look at the words to suit your arguments.

A voluntary sovereign moratorium has no place in an international treaty, resulting in an international obligation.

[RajeshA]

Perhaps one reason, why some NSG Members may not be willing to accept nuclear testing moratorium as a condition for the continuation of the waiver and return of nuclear items on violation of that condition by India are simply the ensuing costs.

As per 123 Agreement it says:

ARTICLE 14 - TERMINATION AND CESSATION OF COOPERATION
...
6. If either Party exercises its right of return pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article, it shall, prior to the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party, compensate promptly that Party for the fair market value thereof and for the costs incurred as a consequence of such removal. If the return of nuclear items is required, the Parties shall agree on methods and arrangements for the return of the items, the relevant quantity of the items to be returned, and the amount of compensation that would have to be paid by the Party exercising the right to the other Party.

Now would suppliers like Russia and France like to be forced to exercise the right of return of nuclear items if they have to
a) damage relations with India - loss of $$$
b) compensate India for the items - loss of $$$
c) compensate India for the disassembly and removal - loss of $$$
d) buy back stuff they may not need - loss of $$$
e) arrange transportation and storage logistics - loss of $$$

Why would they want such conditions and repercussions of termination in the NSG Waiver? If USA wants to bear that burden, that is America's business, but the others would not want that burden!

[jash_p]

narayanan

So why would US not sign the CTBT unless it has some intention of testing in future?

USA signed CTBT but has not ratified.

[Gerard]

There are calls in the US to unsign the treaty after the Senate voted against ratification.

[ShauryaT]

If the NSG "takes notice" of India's voluntary testing moratorium then it's okay. J18 had that as well.

However, if the NSG waiver says - "NSG nations will revisit contracts if India tests" or something like that then it's curtains for this deal and we walk out.

---

PS: There's a difference between a mention of the voluntary moratorium with words like "The NSG takes note of India's voluntary moratorium as a sign of xyz" and "The NSG will stop trade if India rescinds its voluntary moratorium". The former is acceptable and the latter is not.

Ok, thanks you clarified. In your view, 2g is a note and not a condition.

I wonder, what will the NSG say as an alternative. Cannot say, India shall not test as that would be CTBT, which is not in effect.

What may have been better conditions is the replacement of the note/condition of the test moratorium to a commitment, to work towards a CTBT. This would have put is in the same boat of where the US is.

[Rangudu]

ShauryaT,

GoI has carefully played its options and used clever legalese to the extent possible. That said, we are in crunch time now.

Here are the alternatives with respect to NSG and testing clauses:

1. NSG says "We issue a waiver for India. Period." This is unlikely to happen
2. NSG says "We issue a waiver for India with the following conditions (none cross our redlines)" and there is no mention of India's voluntary moratorium anywhere. This has a small probability of happening and would be ideal for India.
3. NSG says "We recognize India's good behavior and current voluntary moratorium" and there is no mention of testing as a condition of cooperation. This is less ideal but still within redlines.
4. NSG says "We will revisit cooperation if India does not honor its voluntary moratorium." This crosses the redline and and India will have to say "No Thanks."
5. NSG says "We will approve trade with India only if India agrees to stop testing." This of course is simply unacceptable.

[svinayak]

N: It is quite simple, if you look at it the way it is, as opposed to trying to look at the words to suit your arguments.

A voluntary sovereign moratorium has no place in an international treaty, resulting in an international obligation.

Too much CYA in these arguments and amendments for 'marginal' benefits for this and that
It does not look like a deal India is really negotiating. It is more about words in a document and about 'marginal' change.

[Sanatanan]

From DD News (Sunday 17 August, 2008):

India expects exemption from NSG without any change to draft



Ahead of the two-day extraordinary plenary meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna from Thursday, India has said it expected an exemption from the NSG without any change to the draft that was circulated by the USA to suppliers.


India also expected the entire process to move in a manner consistent with the 18th July 2005, understanding.

"We have done everything that had to be done and now we expect the NSG exemption without any change to the draft that was circulated to them recently," Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar said in Mumbai on Sunday.

NSG is holding a two-day extraordinary plenary meeting from 21st August especially to discuss the exemptions to India for international nuclear commerce.

Reacting to a letter written by non-proliferation experts and NGOs asking the NSG to reject the US proposal to exempt India from long-standing global nuclear trade standards, Kakodkar said, "We expect the process to move consistent with the 18th July 2005, understanding and any change in their (NSG) position is problematic."

"We can not agree to further demands and there is no way we can," he said.

Last week, 150 non-proliferation experts and NGOs from around two dozen countries asked Foreign Ministers of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to reject the US proposal to exempt India from long-standing global nuclear trade standards.

[Rangudu]

Too much CYA in these arguments and amendments for 'marginal' benefits for this and that
It does not look like a deal India is really negotiating. It is more about words in a document and about 'marginal' change.

That's my cue for going back to lurk mode. No point patiently trying to put forth arguments when they are summarily dismissed as CYA.

Never mind that those that predicted dire things in IAEA draft and 123 had to keep moving goalposts once those things came out within India's expectations.

[enqyoob]

USA signed CTBT but has not ratified.

Heh-heh! Only Americans will see the value in that fine Fork-Tongue statement, sorry (no offense, pls, I am only referrring to the statement, which is an accurate statement of the reality). To everyone else, and, ahem, to sensible Americans as well, it means:

Ah done agreed, but mah momma said "He**, NO!"

IOW, the US ain't agreed to no CTBT.

[Gerard]

India may make policy statement at the crucial meeting of NSG

[ShauryaT]

ShauryaT,

GoI has carefully played its options and used clever legalese to the extent possible. That said, we are in crunch time now.

Here are the alternatives with respect to NSG and testing clauses:

1. NSG says "We issue a waiver for India. Period." This is unlikely to happen
2. NSG says "We issue a waiver for India with the following conditions (none cross our redlines)" and there is no mention of India's voluntary moratorium anywhere. This has a small probability of happening and would be ideal for India.
3. NSG says "We recognize India's good behavior and current voluntary moratorium" and there is no mention of testing as a condition of cooperation. This is less ideal but still within redlines.
4. NSG says "We will revisit cooperation if India does not honor its voluntary moratorium." This crosses the redline and and India will have to say "No Thanks."
5. NSG says "We will approve trade with India only if India agrees to stop testing." This of course is simply unacceptable.

Rangudu: I looked at the draft again and understand better on what you are saying. Although, your view point is reasonable, NSG members would also be be correct to interpret the words in clause 2, which takes note of the following commitment and actions of India, under which sub item (g) occurs, the continuation of unilateral moratorium. When such an event occurs, the NSG will be well within its right to cease cooperation, citing these clauses.

Now, the argument by some that, it is bound to happen anyways and what was defacto is now somewhat dejure will lead to another argument on does India need to test again. A whole other debate, which these threads have visited multiple times.

At the very least, this thread ought to recognize that the IUNCA has just upped the costs of testing and has most likely weakened the options of future prime ministers. In the future, a Prime Minister, when asked to test will be shoveled with a 1000 arguments by a 1000 bureaucrats with a 1000 interpretations of the words we have signed on to. You can count on the world powers to interpret the words in the 123, IAEA and NSG to favor their views.
The only way, India would test now is under dire supreme national interest, where treaties do not or should not matter. if capable.

Hope we are able to build an LiF and hope, we are able to stall FMCT for 10 years, time enough for the breeders to spew enough WgPu and hope Indian leaders would be strong enough to resist the defacto "civilian" tag applied to ALL our reactors in a post FMCT world.

[enqyoob]

Regardless of what the NSG says, whether a given country trades with India on a given deal depends on bilateral relations and the internal laws of both countries. Otherwise, no sale occurs.

So as long as the NSG does not explicitly forbid trade in the event of a test, it matters little what else they say. If they say: "Even if India tests we will trade with India", that does not mean that New Zealand is going to sell radioactive Go-Pu to India at any given time. And if the NSG says: "If India tests then members will have to decide whether they want to test with India", that is equivalent to saying nothing, because that is the reality.

if the NSG says: "This waiver will be null and void and members are explicitly prohibited from trading anything glowing with India in the event of an Indian test for whatever reason" then there is no deal. Walkout time.

So the rest is all just attempts by people to cast the GoI as sellouts when there is no reason to cast such aspersions.

As for the desire to keep making fissile material in a "post-FMCT world", I doubt if that will get approval from the voters of India.

The smart thing is to get all these desires out of the system, BEFORE any such "T"s come into play. That has always been the problem - NPT comes, and India sits around procrastinating instead of becoming a nuclear weapon power. CTBT comes around, and India can't do the 6 tests before THAT, unlike dear France who blew up half the islands in the Pacific, or China that made Tibet glow. Now FMCT will come around, and India better stall that, or get TSP to stall it, until all the FM necessary has been accumulated.

There's no sense in sitting around complaining that the whole world is Out to Get India, instead of doing what is needed to dodge the stones.

[ShauryaT]

The smart thing is to get all these desires out of the system, BEFORE any such "T"s come into play. That has always been the problem - NPT comes, and India sits around procrastinating instead of becoming a nuclear weapon power. CTBT comes around, and India can't do the 6 tests before THAT, unlike dear France who blew up half the islands in the Pacific, or China that made Tibet glow. Now FMCT will come around, and India better stall that, or get TSP to stall it, until all the FM necessary has been accumulated.

Amen to that.

There's no sense in sitting around complaining that the whole world is Out to Get India, instead of doing what is needed to dodge the stones.

Just because someone else in power earlier, screwed up, does not mean future generations have to live their mistakes. If PVN could not pull the trigger at that time, does not mean ABV had to live his mistakes. If ABV was mistaken or misled into a CTBT commitment, does not mean MMS has to continue on the same path. The idea is for current leaders to make their decisions in a manner that is, would be and judged beneficial for and by future generations. Current leaders should not blame the past, as reasons for their actions, even if, many of past actions are felt in the current.

[RajeshA]

The NSG Waiver has only one target audience: the NSG Members (and adherents).

The NSG members make their laws and sign bilateral treaties depending on what the NSG guidelines allow them. If the NSG Guidelines do not explicitly prohibit NSG Members to trade with India, in case India breaks its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, then what is written in the Part 2 is for every Member to interpret as they please. Some will want to include a no nuclear testing clause in their bilateral agreements with India, perhaps Canada and Australia, while others like France and Russia may not want to do that.

A Member country can always choose to have stricter Non-Proliferation Laws than what NSG prescribes, but not more liberal laws.

If the draft is left as it is, India would only be committing to what it signs in the bilateral agreements.

Secondly India does not trade with NSG, but rather with the individual Member countries. As such the principle of "estoppel" or "acquiescence" would not be be operational in this case if a condition of no nuclear testing was included in the Waiver, which is not the case in the present draft.

[Arun_S]

There's no sense in sitting around complaining that the whole world is Out to Get India, instead of doing what is needed to dodge the stones.

Just because someone else in power earlier, screwed up, does not mean future generations have to live their mistakes. If PVN could not pull the trigger at that time, does not mean ABV had to live his mistakes. If ABV was mistaken or misled into a CTBT commitment, does not mean MMS has to continue on the same path. The idea is for current leaders to make their decisions in a manner that is, would be and judged beneficial for and by future generations. Current leaders should not blame the past, as reasons for their actions, even if, many of past actions are felt in the current.

Perfectly stated.
Thanks.

[Muppalla]

I only hope this is not all over East India Company with modern day Mir Jaffers and Mir Qasims.

[Gerard]

Nuclear Power short-lists 4 suppliers for reactors

Westinghouse Electric Company (AP1000 series of reactors), GE-Hitachi (ABWR reactor series) , Areva (1,000 MW European pressurised reactors) and the Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom (VVER 1,000 reactors) are among the frontrunners for new projects planned across the country.

State-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) – the monopoly nuclear power generator – has tentatively short-listed these four major reactor manufacturers based on “suitability” of technical parameters for placement of orders that will form the first phase of the Centre’s plan to build 40,000 MW of nuclear capacity by 2020, Government sources indicated.

Once nuclear trade commences, NPCIL hopes to set up “Nuclear Parks” or reactor clusters, for which four coastal sites have been identified across Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal.

These “parks” are being envisaged with a capacity of housing up to eight reactors of 1,000 MW each at a single location. The orders would initially be placed for around two reactors of 1,000 MW at each of the locations, following which more reactors could be added .

[enqyoob]

I heard someone very knowledgeable* point out very recently that no company in the US has the ability to build reactor pressure vessels for large reactors. Apparently a Japanese company is the only one with recent experience and capability. Comments?

Who built the pressure vessel for the reactor at Kalpakkam that was recently shown being lowered into its pit? Are these 1100MW reactor pressure vessels so much larger that they can't be built in India?

*This person was so frighteningly knowledgeable that when I went up to him and started to say that I was honored to meet him, had read about him a lot, he beat me to it, saying, with a gleam of genuine recognition: "Good to meet you at last, I've read your work!"

I don't mess with such professionals, whether they are sincere or acting.

[Gerard]

Who built the pressure vessel for the reactor at Kalpakkam that was recently shown being lowered into its pit?

L+T

Challenges for Nuclear Power Expansion

Construction Bottlenecks. Another obstacle for getting new nuclear construction under way is the capacity to make ultra-large forging. Pressure vessels—at the core of a nuclear reactor—can be made in several pieces. However, most utilities now want vessels forged in a single piece. Welds can become brittle and leak radiation (older reactors slated for U.S. license extensions have their welds rigorously checked before approval). No welds can decrease the time a reactor is shut down for safety inspections, saving the reactor money.

Only one company in the world, Japan Steel Works, currently can forge reactor vessels this way (Bloomberg). The company can only do about four to five a year, though it hopes to expand to eight per year by 2010. The company's current order backlog is about three years. This requires utilities to place orders well in advance of construction, plunking down about $100 million just to get in the queue.

Utilities are also considering using smaller forgings. Also on the table are more experimental reactors such as pebble-bed modular reactors, which does not require a pressure vessel.

China Able to Produce Forgings for Million-Kilowatt Nuclear Reactors

[sraj]

India may make policy statement at the crucial meeting of NSG

From the above:

New Delhi: With less than four days to go before the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meets to discuss granting India an exemption from its restrictive export rules, the government is still weighing the pros and cons of directly presenting its case before a plenary session of the 45-nation cartel.

If:

i) GoI can stick to its stated position (as articulated by Anil Kakodkar) that GoI will not accept any changes to the draft circulated by the US to NSG; and
ii) the ground rules agreed with NSG are that India will make an opening statement (reiterating the above position of no changes to the US draft), it will have the ability to be present for the entirety of both the planned NSG meetings, on Aug 21-22 and Sept 2, and any others that may discuss this subject (no off-the-record, private drafting sessions amongst NSG members from which India is excluded), and finally, that it will only observe, not respond to anything proposed by any NSG member;

then it may be worthwhile to be present at the NSG meeting as an "Observer".

A. This should make various countries just a little more careful in their statements.

B. However, for this to really work to India's advantage, Shiv Shankar Menon will need to carry in his pocket the "polite letter" from MMS to Bush duly signed by MMS, with the authority to make the judgment call when to walk out of the NSG proceedings and (in consultation with PMO and MEA) release the letter to the global media, thereby pulling the plug on J18 and everything that came thereafter. Will MMS do that?

This situation is likely to arise most likely at the 11th hour of the second plenary on Sept 2, not before.

Watch out for Germany pulling out some unpleasant surprises in its role as Chair of the plenary (aided to some extent by Japan). The smaller countries are a red herring.

[enqyoob]

So Japan has enough business prospects to triple the capacity of Japan Steel Works.. 40 reactors from India, maybe another 50 from others in the next 10 years.. at around $500M per reactor vessel? Somehow I don't think they are going to make India walk away from the NSG.

[sraj]

NDA government position on CTBT

Navtej Sarna
Counsellor (Press & Information)
Washington, DC
(202) 939-7042


Press Release issued by the External Affairs Ministry
on India's position on nuclear issues/CTBT

New Delhi
October 14, 1999

India's position on the CTBT was articulated in Prime Minister's address to the UN General Assembly in September 1998. This position was reiterated by the Prime Minister in Parliament on December 15, 1998, as follows:

"India is now engaged in discussions with our key interlocutors on a range of issues, including the CTBT. We are prepared to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion, so that the entry into force of the CTBT is not delayed beyond September 1999. We expect that other countries, as indicated in Article XIV of the CTBT, will also adhere to this Treaty without conditions" {US Senate threw out CTBT on October 13, 1999}.

The Prime Minister had also announced a voluntary moratorium on any further underground nuclear explosive tests. India also has an unwavering commitment to the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and to universal nuclear disarmament.

The situation regarding ratification of the CTBT as well as the
debate in the US Senate clearly indicates that the CTBT is not a simple uncomplicated issue. Among other things it requires building a national consensus in the countries concerned, including India.

This indicates that the audience that ABV addressed in his commitment {what commitment? pls read his words carefully. Vajpayee said in September 1998 before the UN General Assembly that he is "prepared to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion"!! Obviously, these discussions with 'key interlocutors' did not come to a successful conclusion. Also, how does one "commit" to a "voluntary" action?} for India's voluntary moratorium was the international audience in addition to the domestic audience. He gave a speech to that effect at the UN in September 1998.

To now argue that commitment made by a Prime Minister of India means nothing for the international audience, because somehow it was addressed only for domestic consumption is disingenous and naive at best {interpreting Vajpayee's statement incorrectly could be described as 'disingenous and naive'}. Full credit to MMS for honoring the commitments made by earlier Indian governments and not "trying to shift the goalposts".

Furthermore, a voluntary moratorium made at the UN by the Prime Minister of India is about as multi lateral as it gets. Nothing bilateral about it.

Full Text of Vajpayee's UN Speech, September 24, 1998

[ramana]

Even in the 70s the PWR reactor vessels were built by Mitsubishi for all the reactor vessel designers- Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering and B&W. the latter two have disappeared and Westinghouse was sold to a Japanese company. In the 90s GE the other LWR designer sold their BWR division to Toshiba. Its now called Advanced BWR. Even otherwise the IP is now Japanese. The mfg is already with them.

Its Japan that will benefit if India orders more power reactors.

_
Folks don't let ideology obscure national interests. National interests require preserving the option to test. Its better to test than to have to use it.

[ldev]

From the link of ABV's UN speech posted by sraj above"

These tests do not signal a dilution of India’s commitment to the pursuit of global nuclear disarmament. Accordingly, aftar concluding this limited testing program, India announced a voluntary moratorium on further underground nuclear test explosions. We conveyed our willingness to move towards a de jure formalization of this obligation. In announcing a moratorium, India has already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT. In 1996, India could not have accepted the obligation as such a restraint would have eroded our capability and compromised our national security.

The following points can be summarized from this sentence:

1.ABV and the NDA government acknowledges that the testing program is limited.

2.Willingness for a dejure formalization of the voluntary moratorium.

3.Accepted the basic obligations of the CTBT.

My only point is, given the above, why is there a need to pillory MMS on this thread? What has he done that has not already been agreed to by ABV? In fact I would argue that the language of the 123 agreement and the draft NSG waiver does not in any way transgress what has been India's position ever since that ABV speech.

So why all the angst?

[Nitesh]

A rediff article:

Serious implications for India in NSG draft proposal

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/15brahma.htm

[geeth]

>>>My only point is, given the above, why is there a need to pillory MMS on this thread? What has he done that has not already been agreed to by ABV? In fact I would argue that the language of the 123 agreement and the draft NSG waiver does not in any way transgress what has been India's position ever since that ABV speech.

Your only point (as it appears to me) is that ABV/NDA are the sinners and MMS is a saint..Otherwise, I can't comprehend why you keep on harping that ABV agreed for this or that, when nothing of that sort has actually happened. That way, you can also ask why India is in possession of nuclear weapons when it has 'agreed' for universal disarmament..

With these kind of arguments, we can go round and round without reaching anywhere

[amit]

With these kind of arguments, we can go round and round without reaching anywhere

Exactly Geeth!

And the same applies when the effort is more on trying to show that MMS is selling the country short rather than trying to understand the full ramifications of what's being attempted at the NSG.

How many of the doomsday scenario painters have a full picture of what India is trying to achieve?

Everyone was convinced that India will commit harakiri at the IAEA - where India will actually put its signature on a piece of paper - but that didn't happen did it?

Why not wait till Aug 21 or early Sept after the NSG meeting is over before becoming shrill and accusatory?

One can't pillor MMS and UPA and expect nobody is going to raise questions about ABV and NDA, can you?

JMT

[amit]

A rediff article:

Serious implications for India in NSG draft proposal

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/15brahma.htm

Boss, I guess no point in reposting an article which has already been posted two-three pages before. (By Gerard, if I'm not mistaken).

[arnab]

With these kind of arguments, we can go round and round without reaching anywhere

Exactly Geeth!

And the same applies when the effort is more on trying to show that MMS is selling the country short rather than trying to understand the full ramifications of what's being attempted at the NSG.

How many of the doomsday scenario painters have a full picture of what India is trying to achieve?

Everyone was convinced that India will commit harakiri at the IAEA - where India will actually put its signature on a piece of paper - but that didn't happen did it?

Why not wait till Aug 21 or early Sept after the NSG meeting is over before becoming shrill and accusatory?

One can't pillor MMS and UPA and expect nobody is going to raise questions about ABV and NDA, can you?

JMT

Ah Amit my friend,

The discussion on ‘facts’ was last attempted on the IAEA agreement thread and that boat has now sailed. So now we are back to getting our knickers twisted on what NSG 2g may or may not mean.
I still am trying to get the nay sayers arguments. As I see it, at a very broad level it is a ‘ we should keep our powder dry’ argument. Which is fair enough and as Rangudu pointed out we have nothing to complain as long as our red lines are not transgressed, else we walk. I do not think anyone has issues with this.

Leaving aside the legal semantics, the corollaries to this broad argument are: (1) don’t sign because earlier tests did not work well enough (or we need bigger bums or more WGPu for more bums) and therefore we need more tests or (2) why tie ourselves up with this agreement since 40 GW nuke energy is a pipe dream and is never going to be attainable by 2020? and (3) India should get a seat at the high table with the rest of the 5 Nuke Weapons States and therefore we should never negotiate till that condition is met.
The problem with the argument that our earlier tests did not perfectly is that the then Govt (NDA) said that it did and we were satisfied with the answer. There also seems to be an agreement that the unsafeguarded reactors will retain the capacity to produce an adequate number of bums. (How much is ‘adequate’ is open to debate but I don’t really care if India has enough nukes to turn China and Pak into radioactive heaps or it has the capacity to turn the entire world into a radioactive heap)
Second, regarding doubts about the validity of tests. These doubts are being raised by folks who by their own admission would never have seen the fabrication of a nuke weapon. So I would have to raise doubts about their ability to know such things. Besides, today ‘engineers’ may question the validity of those tests, tomorrow a chai wallah might question them and the day after, an economist (heaven forbid) might question them !! Will future Indian governments run around like headless chickens and keep testing till everyone is convinced? Let us even keep aside the economic implications of such actions.
The problem with (2) is that then it becomes equally easy to construct an argument along the lines of – why have nuke bums since we are never going to use them, it is not going to alter our current internal security environment (our gratest threst), so why not sign the NPT and concentrate on economic growth (as we are only as strong as our weakest link).
Point (3) is theoretically (and jingoistically) sound, but as they say life is random and unfair and I'm afraid the key stakeholders in this (the resident citizens of India) perhaps do not care as much about this.

JMT

[Arun_S]

.... ... .. . . Leaving aside the legal semantics, the corollaries to this broad argument are: (1) don’t sign because earlier tests did not work well enough (or we need bigger bums or more WGPu for more bums) and therefore we need more tests or (2) why tie ourselves up with this agreement since 40 GW nuke energy is a pipe dream and is never going to be attainable by 2020? and (3) India should get a seat at the high table with the rest of the 5 Nuke Weapons States and therefore we should never negotiate till that condition is met.
The problem with the argument that our earlier tests did not perfectly is that the then Govt (NDA) said that it did and we were satisfied with the answer.

For what it is worth, here is an email excerpt (many month ago) from a friend and author of book on Indian N weapons/program (not Bharat Karnad):

Just remember this - the first British thermonuclear test and indeed several after were failures, but the British public was told repeatedly that a thermonuclear deterrent was in place. What the Brits did was two fold - deploy a very large fission weapon (larger than the 500kT the US tested) and subsequently purchased a number of warhead designs from the US.

The British public still does not know the full story.

And the British kept their TN program and TN test option open till it was credible. They protected their national interest and did not sign a two bit bilateral or multilateral agreement.
Why do Indians have to sell their national interest for a song?

[RajeshA]

And the British kept their TN program and TN test option open till it was credible. They protected their national interest and did not sign a two bit bilateral or multilateral agreement.
Why do Indians have to sell their national interest for a song?

If no hard no nuclear testing condition is included in NSG Waiver, and France and Russia need not include such in their bilateral agreements with India, USA might be forced to change the Hyde Act to make their nuclear related companies competitive in the Indian market.

If McCain comes to power, this is indeed a possibility.

[NRao]

And the British kept their TN program and TN test option open till it was credible. They protected their national interest and did not sign a two bit bilateral or multilateral agreement.
Why do Indians have to sell their national interest for a song?

If no hard no nuclear testing condition is included in NSG Waiver, and France and Russia need not include such in their bilateral agreements with India, USA might be forced to change the Hyde Act to make their nuclear related companies competitive in the Indian market.

If McCain comes to power, this is indeed a possibility.

In fact, the US has got both France and Russia to agree not to deal with India until the 123 is passed by the US Congress - even if NSG provides a clean waiver!!!

This may change in light of what is happening in Georgia. (India may owe a big tandoori dinner to that Georgian Prez!!)