India nuclear news and discussion

[RajeshA]

Let us put into words what is not on the table now for India, that was there when India agreed to 123 Agreement and most definitely was there at the time of J18.

1. A benign or neutral stance of the US Administration, regarding international sanctions on India, subsequent to a resumption of nuclear testing by India.

2. Lower probability of US Administration acting on domestic legislation to terminate the agreement upon India conducting nuclear tests.

3. Most importantly, America's support for India to build a strategic fuel reserve, which forms the basis of Indian understanding with the US.

4. Possibility of ENR transfers.

All the above factors were crucial to India, when Indian negotiators agreed on the 123 Agreement. Now that they are not there, so India has a very good argument for just walking away from the deal with USA.

[Sanjay M]

But we can't leave the need to test as a vague promise or expectation, which can be reneged on. There needs to be some legislation passed in parliament, as a counterpunch to the Hyde Act, requiring India to preserve its right to test, as a matter of national policy. Such legislation should explicitly state that it takes precedence over the signing of any international treaties.

I propose that we now discuss the terms and the working of such legislation, in light of the damaging developments from the US Congress.

[Sanjay M]

I wish we could have a dedicated thread to discussing the prospects of India being able to conduct a nuclear test, and the circumstances which might compel us to do so, as well as the circumstances which might be conducive to our doing so.

For instance, the US currently seems to be bogged down on a number of fronts right now, not the least of which are Afghanistan and Iraq, and also the brewing financial crisis. The Americans have not even been able to express an effective response to Russia over Georgia, which only underlines their impotence. Meanwhile, the North Koreans are also unpacking their nuclear equipment.

This tells me that India could conduct another N-test right now, and not face as much flak as it previously might have.

But would it be better for us to hold off on testing, in the hopes of first gaining membership in the NSG? Or is that itself a pipe-dream? Could we set an internal target of 2 years to get NSG membership, and failing that, we write off those chances and go ahead with a test?

I'm thinking we should also wait for the US to get even more bogged down in Afghanistan, and also wait for Iran to conduct a nuclear test in a few years.

[RajeshA]

But we can't leave the need to test as a vague promise or expectation, which can be reneged on. There needs to be some legislation passed in parliament, as a counterpunch to the Hyde Act, requiring India to preserve its right to test, as a matter of national policy. Such legislation should explicitly state that it takes precedence over the signing of any international treaties.

I propose that we now discuss the terms and the working of such legislation, in light of the damaging developments from the US Congress.

Sanjay M, I am very strongly in favor of such an Act. Such legislation should contain much more, but some proposals that I made in an earlier part of this thread are:

Some provisions of this Law could be as follows:

1. Any country, which follows this policy of sanctioning India's strategic program (nuclear testing), would need a prior Parliamentary clearance for each sale of nuclear reactors to India.

2. Any country, which terminates a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation treaty citing Indian activity in the strategic sphere, will also be withheld cooperation in the strategic sphere.
......(a) All privileges to use Indian airspace, ports, fueling facilities and overland routes for military purposes by the concerned country would be canceled.
......(b) India's cooperation in all security initiatives of importance to the concerned country, which do not have UN Sanction, will be terminated (Container Security Initiative, Proliferation Security Initiative, etc)
......(c) Bilateral training exercises between the two militaries would be stopped, while defense intelligence exchange will be minimized.
......(d) Other countries would be favored for major defense acquisitions.

3. This policy will continue, until the Government of India assures the Parliament that the civil nuclear cooperation by the concerned country with India has resumed and India has been sufficiently compensated for the disruption.

JMTs

[nkumar]

Where are the cheerleaders of the deal in media and elsewhere? Haven't seen any column of KS, Raja Mohan, MR Sreenivasan, A. Ghose etc. Are they too stunned by the conditions attached to 123 now. These conditions were always there, just that they have now been codified into a law. These guys can no longer claim, 123 superceding Hyde and other such nonsense. Its hard to find a country which willingly scores a self-goal like this.

[harik]

But we can't leave the need to test as a vague promise or expectation, which can be reneged on. There needs to be some legislation passed in parliament, as a counterpunch to the Hyde Act, requiring India to preserve its right to test, as a matter of national policy. Such legislation should explicitly state that it takes precedence over the signing of any international treaties.

I propose that we now discuss the terms and the working of such legislation, in light of the damaging developments from the US Congress.

Dear Sanjay.

Tis is what these boondiwalla's have been talking abt.. Aray ho jayega.. It will happen. etc etc..
And any legistation post signing is waste. It will be reactive. Boondiwalla will still claim to be ahead of the c..

[ramana]

What was achieved by the US is Indian adherence to defacto NPT, virtual CTBT and potential FMCO. So its a triple win for them and GOI went along willingly that should not be forgotten. Its bi-lateral CRE. This way India keeps H&D of not being part of NPT etc. Arundhati Ghose topyes can write eloquent articles about how India squared the circle and its civlian deal etc but at the bootomline this effectively makes India a part of the NPT and the consequent treaties. The only people Indian elite (diplomats and polticians) fool are Indians. This has happened throughout the centuries.

I thought you were in favour of the 123 deal! You're now saying that the deal is a total debacle for India, and that we're now stuck under NPT-like and CTBT-like restrictions?

Well, then the answer to this is simple -- we don't proceed with the deal.
We haven't submitted any list of facilities to IAEA, so in reality we haven't done anything that we can't pull back from.

If they've reneged on their side of things, then we pull back on our side.

And, just as importantly, the UPA govt would be dumped from power, having wrecked its relations with its various allies and vote banks, and gained nothing for it.
So if there's any silver lining to all of this, it would be that.

So what are the pro-123 commentators/columnists/etc now saying? Are they just keeping mum?
What is Anil Kakodkar saying? All that stuff about "this is nothing new" now seems to be hogwash, doesn't it?

SanjayM, What I was in favor of was the J18 agreement and could live with the modifications of March 3 agreement and the IAEA safeguards agreement. Even the NSG waiver I can live with but this US-123 agreement with its Hydebound conditions is not acceptable.
This 123 agreement is the Hyde without even lipstick!

[Sanjay M]

I don't see what the US hopes to achieve, by trying to push through such a catastrophic deal by hook and by crook, that would only have the backing of one party and not last beyond the current govt's tenure.

Surely the Americans must understand that this type of deal would not find any takers in India, beyond perhaps MMS, Sonia & Co.

How can they think that the rest of India will just stand there and get GUBO'd like this?

We'd better do a Pokhran-3.

[harik]

I don't see what the US hopes to achieve, by trying to push through such a catastrophic deal by hook and by crook, that would only have the backing of one party and not last beyond the current govt's tenure.

Surely the Americans must understand that this type of deal would not find any takers in India, beyond perhaps MMS, Sonia & Co.

How can they think that the rest of India will just stand there and get GUBO'd like this?

We'd better do a Pokhran-3.

Surely the Americans must understand that this type of deal would not find any takers in India, beyond perhaps MMS, Sonia & Co.


Whaa whaa.. Kyaa huub Kya Khoob..... Behterrin ....

[Sanjay M]

Where are the cheerleaders of the deal in media and elsewhere? Haven't seen any column of KS, Raja Mohan, MR Sreenivasan, A. Ghose etc. Are they too stunned by the conditions attached to 123 now. These conditions were always there, just that they have now been codified into a law. These guys can no longer claim, 123 superceding Hyde and other such nonsense. Its hard to find a country which willingly scores a self-goal like this.

I'm really looking to hear what C Raja Mohan, etc have to say. Surely it's not enough to just give silence on all of this.

[ramana]

harik or Fair or Dark, the one thing that causes forum disrutpion is open-ended oneliners without going to whats the problem. And that makes admin job trying, very trying. So in interests of harmony plaese do expalin your Wah, Wah...

[Sean]

Why doesn't GOI focus first on securing natural uranium, and build a large strategic reserve. India can build its own PHWR reactors--which btw will be much cheaper--and use the Pu from these for the second/third stage thorium program. Does India really need ENR technologies?

As for rewarding USA, do non-nuclear deals only, and make it clear that unless US changes its stance there will be no nuclear reactor deals even after signing a flawed 123.

As for France and Russia, see what they are agreeable to. If they toe the US line, then no nuclear reactor deals with them either.

In summary, make the most of the deal by securing natural uranium supplies, and build a large enough strategic reserve that can withstand sanctions in the event of a needed test.

[Sanjay M]

Is it possible KS made his comments before seeing the final text of the legislation?

India experts see no hitch in nuclear deal with US

The Associated Press
Published: September 27, 2008

NEW DELHI: Indian defense and diplomacy experts said Saturday they expect a landmark agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation between India and the United States will overcome a setback in the U.S. Senate.

The nuclear accord would reverse three decades of U.S. policy by allowing atomic fuel to be supplied to India in return for international inspections of its civilian, but not military, reactors.

The agreement appeared stalled in the U.S. Senate on Friday after at least one lawmaker anonymously blocked a vote on the bill under arcane Senate rules, according to congressional aides who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief reporters.

But K. Subrahmanyam, a former member of India's National Security Council, said he was confident the U.S. Senate would find a way around the stalemate.

"Since both majority and minority leaders favor the bill, I hope they will find means of getting round to such things," Subrahmanyam told The Associated Press.

G. Parthasarthy, a retired Indian diplomat, said he believed the objection was procedural.

"One senator can't block it. The bill enjoys bipartisan support and it is likely to go through," he said.

The nuclear deal has been a high priority for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government as it seeks to end India's nuclear isolation since its first atomic test in 1974 and to help meet the country's growing energy needs.

The Bush administration argues that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring India's atomic program under closer scrutiny. But critics say the accord would ruin global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons and boost India's nuclear arsenal.

India has refused to sign nonproliferation agreements and has faced a nuclear trade ban since 1974. But this month, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group agreed to lift the ban on civilian nuclear trade with India after contentious talks and some concessions to countries that were fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.

In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Friday, Singh said the opening of international civil nuclear cooperation with India will have a positive impact on global energy security and on efforts to combat climate change.

[Sanjay M]

Why doesn't GOI focus first on securing natural uranium, and build a large strategic reserve. India can build its own PHWR reactors--which btw will be much cheaper--and use the Pu from these for the second/third stage thorium program. Does India really need ENR technologies?

As for rewarding USA, do non-nuclear deals only, and make it clear that unless US changes its stance there will be no nuclear reactor deals even after signing a flawed 123.

As for France and Russia, see what they are agreeable to. If they toe the US line, then no nuclear reactor deals with them either.

In summary, make the most of the deal by securing natural uranium supplies, and build a large enough strategic reserve that can withstand sanctions in the event of a needed test.

Natural uranium is supposed to be reserved for our weapons program. By using it for the civil program, then it takes away from our available material for weapons.

[rajrang]

Let us put into words what is not on the table now for India, that was there when India agreed to 123 Agreement and most definitely was there at the time of J18.

1. A benign or neutral stance of the US Administration, regarding international sanctions on India, subsequent to a resumption of nuclear testing by India.

2. Lower probability of US Administration acting on domestic legislation to terminate the agreement upon India conducting nuclear tests.

3. Most importantly, America's support for India to build a strategic fuel reserve, which forms the basis of Indian understanding with the US.

4. Possibility of ENR transfers.

All the above factors were crucial to India, when Indian negotiators agreed on the 123 Agreement. Now that they are not there, so India has a very good argument for just walking away from the deal with USA.

The American policy to seek to prevent nuclear supplies to India from other countries in the event of the U.S. terminating nuclear cooperation with India for any reason (your item 1) will effectively prevent India from ever testing for many many decades - regardless of security provocation etc. Both France and Russia will not have the strength to withstand US pressure (most definitely combined with Chinese pressure) if India tests.

[rajrang]

The latest confirmation (American policy to seek to prevent nuclear supplies to India from other countries in the event of the U.S. terminating nuclear cooperation with India for any reason) means India will not need to maintain a fuel reserve.

After all if India tests, then the US (and China) will pressure all countries to terminate nuclear agreements with India and return all nuclear materials including reactors purchased. When the reactors are returned, India will not need fuel for them.

Clearly, PM MMS and India's leadership are not thinking clearly or maybe they are simply gambling for a better outcome should India test.

[harbans]

Rajesh Ji good posts and clear thinking demonstrated. India should'nt sign the 123, as public revelations by the US have made it clear it is not legally binding to them. The anti-deal brigade did a bad job by not understanding the necessity of going the whole hog and atleast past the NSG and IAEA, and withdrew support too fast. If this was the time of withdrawing support, MMS would have had no support. This is what happens when anti-Americanism comes knee jerk to an irresponsible ally like commies.

This deal was really a blessing for both non-proliferation, India's energy needs and the world in general if the NPAs were not so blinded in their hatred for India. Personally i think Bush did his best and is unable to get past the NPA lobby. MMS must convey that and walk out of 123. Signing it after the US publicly makes Hyde override it and endorses punishing India according to its discretion of Indias supreme national interests is humiliating.

The silence of a lot of pro-dealers is a lull i feel. I doubt even MMS and SG will be so stupid to endorse 123 in such terms. Something is going to happen. Else if they sign, BJP will come to power and certainly make a campaign issue to test.

US NPAs should realize once we test in the next one year, NPT, CTBT, every 4 letter treaty goes to the drain. The NPAs will destroy the very treaty whose principles India has upheld sacrilegiously, and they have destroyed. Is that beyond their comprehension?

PS: 5 years down the line i see the very same NPAs or 6 packs in the NSG having little problem in putting Pakistan in the group. This is the coterie that hoodwinked massive nuclear proliferation and morevoer will lead to nuclear armageddon.

[Sanjay M]

These "NPAs" are nothing of the kind -- I've told you, they are nothing but Atlanticists in disguise. They have no concern for the issue of non-proliferation, or otherwise they would have never kept mum on China and Pakistan as they did.

Anyway, the deal does not have to be won or lost on some subtle timing maneuver. The fact is that if this deal is bad for India, then Congress will never be able to make it fly. The language introduced by the US Congress is so explicit as to leave no room for the imagination. It can clearly be held up before the Indian people and shown to be the hollow farce that it is.

I am still waiting for some experts to at least speak up, and say that the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Anybody hear anything from Brahma Chellaney at least? He of all people should now be crowing loudly in vindication. Does he have a blog or something that I can go to?

[nkumar]

Anybody hear anything from Brahma Chellaney at least? He of all people should now be crowing loudly in vindication. Does
he have a blog or something that I can go to?

Brahma's blog: http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/blog/

I am sure now more spin will be given on the lines of - it would be foolish on our part to expect US to allow us to build strategic reserves, legal commitments are just to appease NPA's and they will not be applicable to India! We have more or less achieved our J18/123 goals like full civilian nuclear cooperation and more such obfuscation. Problem is that many folks have too huge egos to accept that they wrong were in their assumptions/assertions/US's intentions/motives behind this deal etc. Now they will take the help of spin. My Spin-O-Meter has already started flickering

What will happen next: this deal will be claimed as a major foreign policy victory in the history of independent India. Congress will continue to mislead people with the slogans like nuclear bijlee for aam aadmi

Those who think that the current administration will walk out of this deal are expecting too much from UPA and especially from a PM, who has staked his personal reputation on the deal. Realpolitik is a game of cold-blooded calculations in self-interest where personal emotions/prestige/egos have no role to play.

[kshirin]

Siddharth Varadarajan has been lucidly, non-rhetorically and with good insight been analysing the pitfalls and flaws in the N-deal process. I think we should never have taken our eye off the Hyde Act. Now it is clear its Jekyll was 123.

[Sanjay M]

Again, there is no real difficulty for a successor NDA govt to walk away from this deal, if it finds the conditions and restrictions to be onerous.

Even if Manmohan goes thru with a farce of signing, the next govt can simply rip up the agreement.
If there are no reactors yet built on the ground, then there is nothing for them to cut off.
The gun chamber is not loaded until we actually have some foreign reactors on our soil.

The question is -- do the West have some plan up their sleeves to ensure Congress govt won't fall, and will stick around to keep this deal in place for a couple of more terms of office?
More well-timed Tehelka-isms, perhaps? We'd have to be quite the banana republic to keep falling for those shenanigans over and over.

[enqyoob]

What rankles me is the virtual CTBT bag over our heads. There was no willingness in India for such a concession. The concession was not made willingly but rather forced from us, by trapping India through duplicitous negotiations and bargaining in bad faith. Of course, MMS allowed that concession.

A small factual inaccuracy. Please substitute "ABV" instead of "MMS". "Virtual CTBT" == "Voluntary Moratorium".

So after reading the latest round of "arguments" here on why India should "walk out", I remain even more impressed by the persistence of the Indian Branch of the NPAs.

Other uncomfortable facts: please correct me, I have not been following the news for the past week.
1. What the US House has approved is exactly what they were expected to approve. Berman may have done this and that, but all he has got is some vague promise from Rice to "try" to do something at the NSG meeting. AFTER the India-France agreement is long signed and sealed.

2. NO change has been introduced into the US-India 123 agreement.

3. Comrade Siddharth Varadarajan, DC-based pansy of the notoriously anti-India, Chinese-owned rag "The HUNDI", continues to maintain his record of making

a cow went poo

sound like

INDIA STABBED IN THE BACK AS US ALLOWS COW TO GO POO! MMS HAS NO ANSWERS!

to the uncritical admiration of hordes of the Holy Hindu Sena obligingly doing what Beijing wants them to do.

But hope on, please, BRF needs the hits. The Senate still has to vote. There's a hurricane heading for the Northeast coast, and with any luck Washington DC will close down.

Jai Jai Dravida AllBrightesh Lantoswami for BJP General Secretary!

[Sanjay M]

Siddharth Varadarajan has been lucidly, non-rhetorically and with good insight been analysing the pitfalls and flaws in the N-deal process. I think we should never have taken our eye off the Hyde Act. Now it is clear its Jekyll was 123.

Yeah, July18 was Jekyll, and Sep27 is Hyde.

[Sean]

Natural uranium is supposed to be reserved for our weapons program. By using it for the civil program, then it takes away from our available material for weapons.

I was talking about importing natural uranium, which India can do under the NSG waiver. This imported uranium can then be used in the Indian PHWR reactors, and the spent fuel reprocessed, with Indian technology, to extract reactor grade plutonium for the thorium reactor program. It is my understanding that this is possible under the waiver, unless the uranium exporting country, say Canada, were to put additional restriction on reprocessing of spent fuel.

As the thorium reactor program is not part of IAEA inspections, it can then be utilized to breed weapons grade plutonium.

[Sanjay M]

A small factual inaccuracy. Please substitute "ABV" instead of "MMS". "Virtual CTBT" == "Voluntary Moratorium".

True, but whether ABV, LKA, or even if Modi himself had been in power, we would have had to propose something like that, just to blunt the US response.

The partial success of Pokhran-2 and its inability to robustly ensure the reliability of our thermonuclear weapons capability was also part of the letdown there.
It's really unfortunate that we couldn't get the whole thing right at that time, for our trouble taken.

So after reading the latest round of "arguments" here on why India should "walk out", I remain even more impressed by the persistence of the Indian Branch of the NPAs.

Other uncomfortable facts: please correct me, I have not been following the news for the past week.
1. What the US House has approved is exactly what they were expected to approve. Berman may have done this and that, but all he has got is some vague promise from Rice to "try" to do something at the NSG meeting. AFTER the India-France agreement is long signed and sealed.

2. NO change has been introduced into the US-India 123 agreement.

So you're saying what Anil Kakodkar used to say -- ie. "nothing new in the language"

What I see that's new in the language of the legislation was that the US will make it their policy to seek cutoff from the rest of NSG.
That they would seek cutoff of their own supplies was known.
To seek cutoff from other NSG members "as a national policy" is newer and more damaging language.

3. Comrade Siddharth Varadarajan, DC-based pansy of the notoriously anti-India, Chinese-owned rag "The HUNDI", continues to maintain his record of making

a cow went poo

sound like

INDIA STABBED IN THE BACK AS US ALLOWS COW TO GO POO! MMS HAS NO ANSWERS!

to the uncritical admiration of hordes of the Holy Hindu Sena obligingly doing what Beijing wants them to do.

I think that given some of the stronger revisionist language in US laws relative to the original J18, that we'd better take a stronger tilt towards Russia and perhaps also France.
We'd better be willing to drive a hard bargain with France, and if they try to put in too many conditionalities, then we'd better take that as a warning sign of a wider game afoot.

If the French don't give us strong guarantees, then we should be willing to defer any agreement with them for the time being, until we've had a chance to see what we can get from the Russians.

But hope on, please, BRF needs the hits. The Senate still has to vote. There's a hurricane heading for the Northeast coast, and with any luck Washington DC will close down.

Jai Jai Dravida AllBrightesh Lantoswami for BJP General Secretary!

If the US can backpeddle from J18 after they got MMS on the hook, then there's no harm in us backpeddling from Sep27, now that US has passed the NSG waiver. We should now at least be willing to haggle, and play some games ourselves. We should get a firmer gauge of much the Russians would be willing to support us at NSG.
I'm not saying I trust Putin's own nationalist opportunistic nature, but I'm saying that he has no NPAs or whatever to contend with, just a clear sense of his own national interest.

[Sanjay M]

Natural uranium is supposed to be reserved for our weapons program. By using it for the civil program, then it takes away from our available material for weapons.

I was talking about importing natural uranium, which India can do under the NSG waiver. This imported uranium can then be used in the Indian PHWR reactors, and the spent fuel reprocessed, with Indian technology, to extract reactor grade plutonium for the thorium reactor program. It is my understanding that this is possible under the waiver, unless the uranium exporting country, say Canada, were to put additional restriction on reprocessing of spent fuel.

As the thorium reactor program is not part of IAEA inspections, it can then be utilized to breed weapons grade plutonium.

I don't think that we're allowed to keep spent fuel from anything that's imported without returning it. It's supposed to be a separate closed fuel cycle. No foreign fuel can be used in our non-inspected plants.

I wonder if we could build coal-fired powerplants that could convert thorium into U233 by accelerator-driven breeding, consuming hydrocarbon fuel in the process.

We should really look at upping our number of coal-burning plants.
We could probably rope in China for opposing any Kyoto lobbies internationally, and then just smoke our way out.
Why use up all the precious domestic uranium when we have huge amounts of coal, dirty as it is?

[Sanjay M]

The fact that BJP/non-Congress parties were totally excluded from the negotiating process presents another excuse for going back on this treaty.

A post-Congress successor govt can justifiably claim that it had legitimately opposed this deal all along, and that there is nothing stopping them from introducing legislation to rescind this deal.
A strong showing of parliamentary votes on this would give any such govt all the legitimacy it needed.
After all, if the deal's passage thru parliament was not contrived, then it would not be possible for the deal to be sunk by another parliamentary vote so soon after. Having another vote which then sinks it would only underline the lack of real support for it to begin with.

[Sean]

I don't think that we're allowed to keep spent fuel from anything that's imported without returning it. It's supposed to be a separate closed fuel cycle. No foreign fuel can be used in our non-inspected plants.
[/quote]
I would like to hear from others on this issue. I understand that foreign fuel can't be used in non-inspected facilty, but reprocessed fuel can be transfered to non-inspected FTBR reactors.

[Gerard]

Reprocessed foreign fuel remains under safeguards and IAEA seal. The reprocessing plant itself is under campaign safeguards during the time the foreign origin spent fuel is present.
If that reprocessed Pu ends up in a breeder reactor, the reactor itself will be under perpetual safeguards. It will cease to be a non-declared facility.

With the import of natural Uranium now allowed, India has enough internal mining capacity to fuel 2 of the PHWRs in low burnup mode. If a partial core is used for low burnup, all 8 of the non-declared PHWRs can be used for low burnup production of weapons grade Pu.

The PFBR will (in 2010) be available for laundering the tons of non-safeguarded reactor grade Pu that India already possesses, converting the U and Th in the breeder blankets to weapons grade Pu and U233 if so desired.

[Arun_S]

Where are the cheerleaders of the deal in media and elsewhere? Haven't seen any column of KS, Raja Mohan, MR Sreenivasan, A. Ghose etc. Are they too stunned by the conditions attached to 123 now. These conditions were always there, just that they have now been codified into a law. These guys can no longer claim, 123 superceding Hyde and other such nonsense. Its hard to find a country which willingly scores a self-goal like this.

The cheerleaders of the deal in media and elsewhere are as conspicuous by their absence as the in Hindi: "Gadhay Kay Sar Par Sieng" {viz as clearly as no evidence of horn on donkey's head). These cheerleaders argued to lead the country the gardenpath, and when the deal goes horribly sour (as is very clear it has), just pain oops, excuse me I am out of this discussion, let someone else clean the shit and let God protect Indian interests. On BRF the only exception is Katare who has personal integrity to admit he was mislead into supporting the deal.

Natural uranium is supposed to be reserved for our weapons program. By using it for the civil program, then it takes away from our available material for weapons.

It is disturbing to hear this from a long term BRFite. That is a classic NPA argument. India was and is not short of Natural Uranium for making nuclear weapons; period. If one want to argue about it please show quantitatively, how much natural uranium is required for making say 1,000 bombs, and if that exceeds Indian U reserves.

Submarine reactor is not a nuclear weapon. Submarine reactor is only nuclear propulsion and again India has enough Natural Uranium to field a a sizeble ATV fleet.

[Arun_S]

Natural uranium is supposed to be reserved for our weapons program. By using it for the civil program, then it takes away from our available material for weapons.

I was talking about importing natural uranium, which India can do under the NSG waiver. This imported uranium can then be used in the Indian PHWR reactors, and the spent fuel reprocessed, with Indian technology, to extract reactor grade plutonium for the thorium reactor program. It is my understanding that this is possible under the waiver, unless the uranium exporting country, say Canada, were to put additional restriction on reprocessing of spent fuel.

As the thorium reactor program is not part of IAEA inspections, it can then be utilized to breed weapons grade plutonium.

I would like to hear from others on this issue. I understand that foreign fuel can't be used in non-inspected facilty, but reprocessed fuel can be transfered to non-inspected FTBR reactors.

Please read Hyed Act and the 123. It expressly prohibits that.

[Rye]

This thread the internet equivalent of a scratched vinyl record, not to mention Hundi's Siddharth Varadarajan is the hero of this thread...impressive. On the one hand there is a lot of railing at the fake liberals etc., and then there is this penchant to quote the views of the same fake liberals that everyone hates so much because they say things that everyone wants to hear (you know, SV, MJ Akbar, Seema Mustafa)...it is all so delightful.

[enqyoob]

Rye, I have been out of circulation, but am I far off in concluding that NOTHING has changed wrt US-India 123 agreement? All the rest here is of course, the usual contribution to delaying the Ice Age...

[Sanjay M]

So are you clearly stating that we have enough domestic supply of natural uranium that we can sustain both our weapons program needs and a robust civilian energy program?

If so, then why are our reactors barely chugging along in lowest possible burnup mode, with a minimum of fuel? Why have we been struggling to import fuel? I would think that the K Subrahmanyam, C Raja Mohan, etc would have mentioned our domestic alternatives, if they were so strong.

Anyway, we could start building a lot of smelly coalplants, to make use of our abundant domestic supply of dirty coal. That should help us weather the energy price challenges, and also get us some attention from the green lobby. We can then turn carbon emissions into a North-vs-South issue, and go full speed ahead with coal plants, even exporting coal plants to other countries.

[Sanjay M]

Rye, it's not enough to say that "it's from the Hindu, so ignore it"

I need to know how protected our waiver is, if we don't sign 123.

We should seriously aver from signing it, given the tough language in their 123 law.

We should also see what poison pill measures can be taken, to keep US companies on the ropes, once an NDA govt is in power.

Once the Congress govt is thrown out, NDA would have all the support from all corners of the political spectrum to make Congress miserable over this deal. There'll be no lack of cooperation on this issue, which is the one thing that can unite all parties.

[Rye]

N, There was stuff apparently added to Hyde in addition to what is there added by Berman, but even if there was, this is my problem with understanding the claims of doom and gloom.

What I fail to understand is (a) the text of the NSG and IAEA agreements have already been agreed upon (b) This frees India to sign up with Russia and France if the US screws itself up and the really important bit is "how does any addition to the Hyde act affect the NSG and IAEA agreement and the one-on-one 123 agreements with France and Russia?" Because unless any of those say anything new other than the well-worn "you test, we react" clause, I am not sure there is any cause for excitement.

The really important parts seems to be acquiring the ability to influence the major powers because of mutual business interests, where these powers (US and Russia mainly) are diverging on other issue, and this seems like a good position for India to be in. The FMCT draft treaty created by the US seems to allow countries with military programs to retain their military material, and so claims of India will be tied down by the FMCO seems bogus.

NRao claims that he can see how the new clauses added by Berman can now affect earlier treaties, but I don't quite understand that post. (it should be in the previous page, where I asked NRao how Berman's additions messed with the NSG). The additions say that the US will work with all other NSG members in stopping supplies to India etc., but India's goal seems to be a NSG supplier down the line, which means those clauses are only worrisome if India does not manage to break into the supply side of the NSG down the line.

Finally, and I think this is important, the USA and the other countries will definitely not do anything to push India to break from 123 down the line -- that is a lot worse for this dying "non proliferation" regime than it is for India, especially given the level of paranoia in western capitals about these technologies reaching the hands of those that it should not.

[Rye]

Sanjay M wrote:

Rye, it's not enough to say that "it's from the Hindu, so ignore it"

In that case why not go to the source and "analyze" all the articles in Xinhua and the chinese rags --- after all hindu condenses those views when it makes its case.

A year ago or less, people here were analyzing all the cr@p written by Seema Mustafa and MJ Akbar and pretending that they were the paragons of truth (except of course when they speak badly of hindus, in which case those two are evil and fake liberals).

[Baljeet]

In the house, not a single vote against the deal came from Florida and Virginia. Most of the Democrats from California against the deal, including my own representative. She has lost four votes from my household for the upcoming election. However, she is expected to win handily.

Sean
Who will that be..?

[Gerard]

Please read Hyed Act and the 123. It expressly prohibits that.

This has nothing to do with the Hyde act or the 123.

This is due to the INFCIRC66 IAEA safeguards agreements that India has signed. When India imported heavy water for use in two PHWRs, it was obliged to place them under safeguards under the IAEA perpetuity provisions.

The spent fuel from a safeguarded reactor remains under IAEA safeguards. At most India can substitute this fissile material for an equal amount it then places under safeguards.
Any facility where safeguarded fuel is used is under safeguards. The enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing facilities can be under campaign safeguards for the duration of the fuel presence there but the reactors will be under perpetual safeguards if safeguarded material is used to fuel them.

This has been the case before the nuclear deal and it remains the case afterwards. It has never been an option to divert foreign fuel to an unsafeguarded facility. This would be a violation of the NPT itself. While India is not an NPT signatory, all possible supplier countries are.

[Sanjay M]

Russia's Putin has used environmental legislation to turf out the oil deals that were made by his spineless predecessor Yeltsin.

Could we eventually do the same thing for reactor deals, to reduce our exposure to them, once we are a member of NSG?