India nuclear news and discussion

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 05 Oct 2008 10:12

The bigger the risk one undertakes the greater is the return. If this applies to business, doesn't it apply to a nation too. By the time something is too obviously a profit making venture, the gains/returns in it become too small. A risk-averse nation that takes measures that give 99% guarantees of success can only make small incremental gains and grow at what gora-brotherhood call, a "hindu" rate of growth. If economic salvation is our mantra then public should not be preaching babus risk-aversion but playing the cards right.

Of course the risk has to be taken after all calculations have been made and bureaucrats need to think each and every possibility and get the provisions incorporated to safeguard indian interests. It is now upto us to either work hard and get the most out of it OR allow others to take advantage of us(it's their nature) and then blame babus for taking up the gamble. We are taking a gamble on our own ability to work hard in future using the gains from the deal, create a better economy and eventually a greater dependence of the world on India (enabling softer and sanctionless reactions to future tests). And a gamble works both ways.

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 05 Oct 2008 10:23

NRao:

The tune is the US. Dance and you will get yearly bakshis from US Prez. I have already posted the support from BOTH RU and FR on this matter, so I do not see ANY NSG country that will support India. No way. Let us see if France gives ENR - AK has already stated that India has her own (at the signing of the FR deal), after he stated that he expects ENR from all vendors. That is a huge back step. But, based on the past I think it the political pressure that spoke, certainly not the scicoms.

After Shakti, France and Russia defied any sanctions, and they are being rewarded today. Just because POTUS does us a monumental favor in pushing the NSG, dosen't meant the opposite is also true. This is like chemistry, equation only goes one way, not math. Besides, what makes you think a future POTUS is going to be inclined to hurt India, the sanctions part only requires him to make an attempt or attempts. If he isn't inclined to, he can always make an unsuccessful attempt. Then Ireland, Austria and New Zealand can ask for their supplies back.

Re ENR, you just said that AK stated we have our own, so do we want it for free as part of the deal?

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 05 Oct 2008 10:58

Duplicate....deleted.

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 05 Oct 2008 10:58

By linking civilian nook technology with Indian national security needs (testing a new nuke design or a weapon), US has successfully tried to contain India. Indians will be foolish to accept this form of a treaty with a dream of becoming a part of P6... Hell with P6... Our national security cannot and should not be contained by civilian deals with US or for that matter with any other nation. We have survived with out Americans for the past 60 years and we will survive this century with or with out USA. Looks like the next gen of India is looking for ready made things and not believing in hardship when it comes to nation building. One must understand that what comes easy, goes easy.

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 05 Oct 2008 11:33

Looks like the next gen of India is looking for ready made things and not believing in hardship when it comes to nation building. One must understand that what comes easy, goes easy.

No, the only difference with this generation is that India has the money and the last generation did not. Money talks, BS walks. I think the easy come easy go applies to girls, not business.

Vidyarthi · Post by **Vidyarthi** » 05 Oct 2008 12:13

Clearly, the developments under discussion have both positive and negative points. Do'nt most such deals have?

Now, we have to test the availability of perceived benefits. We have to get the reactors, fuels and reprocessing technology on terms suitable to us, from whoever is willing to sell. Nobody can force us to compromise on long term viability of our purchases. Our thoughts should identify show- stoppers like, denial of fuel after we have spent billions to set up the reactors as in TAPP, denial to reprocess even under IAEA oversight, and the like. Our trade negotiators have to be upto the mark. Not like those involved in ENRON or TAPP deals. We have to devise an agile institutional mechanism to negotiate. We have to set up alert Regulatory mechanisms. And, so on.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2008 12:47

Reactor shortage to sour India's nuclear dream by Anand Shanker: Business Standard

In the 1980s, there were about 400 nuclear suppliers and 900 nuclear-certified companies in the US. These have shrunk to fewer than 80 suppliers and 200 certifications

The euphoria of the nuclear deal will soon die down and it will be time to deliver on the promise to supply electricity. The crucial problem of supply of uranium is said to have been resolved, but little has been said about the shortage of critical components for building new nuclear reactors worldwide. The problem starts with the heart itself — the reactor.

At present, countries investing in nuclear power programmes, except Russia, have to queue up at one foundry — Japan Steel Works (JSW) — to place orders for their main reactor pressure vessel and its allied equipment. The vessel encloses the radioactive uranium fuel and the nuclear reactions happen inside it.

Two leading private agencies that track developments in the civilian nuclear industry — the World Nuclear Association (WNA) and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) — have warned it will be difficult to meet targets set for plant construction, upwards of 200 by 2030, if JSW continues to produce just five vessels a year.

“The supply challenge is not confined to the heavy forgings for reactor pressure vessels, steam turbines and generators. It extends to most engineered components and with escalating steel and energy prices there is a flow-on to plant costs,” said Jeremy Gordon, Writer and Analyst, World Nuclear Association, when contacted by Business Standard.

“In the 1980s, there were about 400 nuclear suppliers and 900 nuclear-certified companies in the United States. These have shrunk to fewer than 80 suppliers and 200 certifications in recent years. Even if some of this is due to corporate takeovers, the decline is dramatic,” said Mycle Schneider, an independent consultant, who is the author of the BAS 2008 World Nuclear Status Report.

The duo said that JSW order book was full till 2016, even before India has even planned its requirement. When contacted by Business Standard, a JSW spokesman, Kouji Tsutsumi, in an email response confirmed the backlog. “Yes. But we do not release specific figure.”

It is said that buyers are paying a premium of $100 million for booking a reactor from JSW, but it could not be confirmed independently. No data is available on Russia’s Rosatom and it did not respond to queries.

But, Tsutsumi said, “We are making capital investment to expand our capacity to 8.5 unit/year by the end of FY2010.” But he confirmed that the company has no plans to collaborate with forging units around the world or setup facilities elsewhere.

UK-based Sheffield Forgers and India’s Larsen and Toubro (L&T) are planning to enter this field. Sheffield Forgers estimated the cost of adding a production facility at 150 million pounds (Rs 1,258 crore), while a spokesman for L&T said the company was willing to invest up to Rs 1,700 crore adjacent to its existing facility at Hazira in Gujarat and that it could be operational in three years.

Demand for India alone cannot spur production, at a time when there are doubts about the commitment to nuclear power from US and European governments, concurred both Gordon and Schneider, who said that plant construction around the world dropped from 10 a year before the Chernobyl accident to less than four a year at present.

They said even projects underway now are plagued by incessant engineering and financial delays. This was reaffirmed by Moody’s in a report dated October 2007. It concluded that it believed many of the current expectations for nuclear were “overly ambitious”, due to everything from lack of materials, manpower and poor credit ratings of power utilities.

Companies have thus been skeptical in planning investments, in spite of the surge in demand due to attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. L&T said though it was in discussions with major reactor makers like General Electric, Areva SA and Westinghouse, it will prefer to start with smaller components and forging reactor vessels will require commitment to an order book. It refused to put a number on costs and production capacity. Also any company manufacturing nuclear plant components will have to get international certification and adhere to standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), state-owned and India’s monopoly nuclear power producer, is expected to get a fair share of new reactors. A spokesman for the company said it was aware of the shortage in availability of critical plant components but that it was an “opportunity” for local industry to benefit from it.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 17:26

Rajesh, the key point is at the very end:

it was an “opportunity” for local industry to benefit from it.

It is quite true that there is only one foundry today that survives in the business of building massive reactor pressure vessels on the scale of the 1100MW reactors.

But if the waiting list gets too long, you can bet that competition will spring up in short order.

Note that the US is also embarking on a program of some 60 new reactors at the 1100MW level. So is China. So you add up the demand, and it's clear that new reactor-vessel foundries will come up.

Meanwhile, at the lower end, the market opens up for Indian-built 700MW class reactors. A tall challenge to Indian metallurgy and manufacturing quality control, but one which can really move the Indian industrial base and infrastructure forward. Imagine the problem of transporting welded components of such reactors over Indian roads, where a sharp bump can put that stress concentration into a weld that causes a Three Mile Island type event down the road. Some interesting technical and infrastructure challenges are coming down the goat-paths indeed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Oct 2008 17:47

I'll drop the gold issue, it is going off track, since my point was not understood.

The FBR's were civilian, NO? Looks like Bush didn't try too hard and MMS made the mistake of getting AK involved.

FBRs are NOT civilian ....... yet. They will be ONLY when India gets to reproc the "waste" from imported reactors. And, since ENR techs have not been handed over (yet?), bringing FBRs over to the civilian side does not make any sense. It is my read that the US will not allow ENR UNTIL India brings over the FBRs to the civilian side. (Per AKs plan the earliest he plans on shifting them is 2020.)

(As another reminder, even IF India gets ENR, these deals state that the mal India gets can be only 5 or 20% - cannot recall which one. Useless for FBRs. India in J18 clearly envisioned foriegn reactors to support Indian FBRs. MMS did not get that for India.)

After Shakti, France and Russia defied any sanctions, and they are being rewarded today

Not from what I have heard from the scicoms (from the US just BTW). FR and RU have the best techs out there that suite India. Japan I am told has some dynamite techs too, but, it is my understanding that the US is not allowing for these techs to be sold. GNEP appears to be the reason.

Besides selling reactors is cheap. Providing ENR is THE tech that will determine what the standing is between these countries and India. Note: So far NONE have given those techs per these current deals. The loop is not complete until then. And, just BTW, when the waste piles up in India no one is prepared to take back the waste too - starting with the US! !!

Liek I stated earlier, these deals place India in a better position than before these deals - for sure, no two ways about that. But the leash is still there. As long as India dances to their tune it is fine. Personally I do not think testing is an issue, but then I could be wrong. However, FBR is THE issue. Uncle will not stand Indian FBRs. And, MMS, IMHO (of course) failed to make that statement clear enough. IMHO, he has kicked that can. Every one of these deals is interpretable and I do not see any Indian leader - SO FAR - that will stand up to them.

India will get her reactors, will have a lousy transmission system, waste most of the energy, some 30% will be affordably rich and the rest will remain where they are - still struggling.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 17:54

NRao:

Unkil has "tolerated" massive technological advancement in Japan and S. Korea, and in France. To a great extent, it is recognized that advancement in another country provides the motivation to get funding for advancement in the US. Thus the Chinese Manned Space Program, for instance, is seen as a great boon by many Americans in the Space business, because sooner or later, some Senators are going to thump the desks and demand an Apollo-like response, or, even better, cause a pouring of funds like Sputnik did (though this is pipe dreams).

So part of the Bush Administration's keenness to boost Indian civilian nuke power, is to break the opposition to nuke power in the US. FBRs are another aspect of it. The US has FBR facilities that were developed, and apparently shut down suddenly for unspecified reasons.

BUT.... any Indian move has to avoid chest-thumping and calls for Megaton bums etc. A certain amount of finesse is required, as the Japanese have demonstrated.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Oct 2008 18:44

N^3,

Thanks for that post. It supports exactly what I am saying. That Uncle has only his interests in mind AND NOT that of India. Else he would have twisted more arms to get India a lot more ....... which, actually, India deserves.

However, now that you make the argument that Bush wanted to break the nuclear barriers within the US I feel India that India should have got a lot, lot more.

On the flip side, this is a very dangerous game MMS has got India into (assuming what you are saying is true). I suppose this is part of the strategic partnership?

However, this fits into the GNEP picture very, very well. And, perhaps this is the time to say it, I suspect MMS has "sold" India into GNEP. As a recipient country, with a supplier skin.

IF (BIG if), that is true then we can expect Uncle to chase Indian fissile material FIRST, testing is no longer an issue, and ENR will be provided, provided FBR is shut down. India will become a reprocessing facility for Asia/ME. (I am very curious to see where such a facility will be located in India.)

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 19:27

NRaoji, I have no lack of concerns about this whole thing. BUT, one cannot be a superpower and beggar at the same time.

MMS no doubt understands this, and so do Abdul Kalam and Anil Kakodkar and Arundhati Ghose, all patriots.

My point, if you re-read my post, is that Japan has managed to rise to near-superpower status within the same time that India has had since Independence. They did so, starting as a crushed, enslaved colony of the US, hated around the world. Today they are respected the world over.

If Japan can do it, so can India. One for one, Indians are no less smart or hard-working or determined than Japanese (at least, we can find enough Indians to match every Japanese one for one).

The Americans have very well recognized that India is a free nation, and will act according to Indian interests. The US move to the 123 is basically an admission that the tactics of bullying over the past 40 years have not worked, and it's time to change approaches.

My basic disagreement with several postors (not counting the political puppets who are immune to logic) is in my optimistic projection for the long term evolution of India as a confident nation. Without that confidence, I guess life would be very depressing, so don't ask me to justify that confidencec quantitatively every second. I am confident that it works on average, over the long averaging period, like the confidence that the Stock Market will keep going up on average.

So we can see monsters lurking under every document, and curl up into a corner of our mental caves, or we can march ahead, and we may find that many of the monsters get left in the dust of our progress. Sure we will get to fight many monsters, and suffer some defeats, but that has to be faced.

Today's GOI, like its predecessors, has shown every sign of understanding precisely where India's real red lines are, and they have protected those extremely well IMO, through this whole process (as near as we may think they came to caving in).

So, you are ABSOLUTELY right, the USA acts for the interests of the USA, not for India. India acts for the interests of India, not for the USA. Hajaar saal pehle, as a hungry recent PhD, I explained that fact politely but firmly (and with full knowledge and awareness of what I was doing) looking straight into the eyes of a shocked American corporate R&D manager who was interviewing me and was expecting to hear a rant against Indira Gandhi to confirm my suitability for a sensitive defense R&D job as contractor at a highly sensitive USAF base, and that basically nixed my chances for that job despite the enthusiasm of the technical people - but IIRC, they were the ones that went out of business a few years later, and I was the one who moved up fast. So I have never had any doubts on this issue, and there is no revelation in my saying so now. (And u may also c why I don't get rattled even by the respected Adminullahs here).

But my confidence is that the leaders of thought in both nations have firmly concluded that those interests are now close enough that we can collaborate. This is why I am completely sanguine about details such as "signing statements" and "Notes Verbales".

And no, I do not share your pessimism about the waste storage or reprocessing issues.

The ENR debate is something I have not understood. AFAIK, it does not affect the civilian program (otherwise, India won't buy reactors that need it, period, so there is no sale).

If it applies to the strategic program, I think those who shriek on this issue are doing so in bad faith. NOTHING in this agreement speaks to the strategic program, and I am sure that every NSG nation will take care NOT to help the strategic program EXPLICITLY. That is the whole point of the CIVILIAN nuclear agreement.

The Strategic program is strictly Indian. But with one HUGE advantage: now all domestic investment in mining, and all domestic-origin fuel, can be used as India pleases, for strategic programs. On this point, the NPAs are completely right - the world has decided to close its eyes to the fact that selling nuke fuel to India frees India to move the strategic program ahead at the desired pace.

At some point, Indian FBRs will come into the civilian sector, and kick off the 3rd stage towards complete self-sufficiency.

BUT, OTOH, I fully expect that advancements in ENR, reactor metallurgy, thermal system efficiencies (such as fast-neutron capture systems in fusion reactors), all will come in good time, WITHOUT any government ever admitting it openly. This is what open people-2-people contacts and intelligent R&D achieve. And again, this deal opens up that cooperation and lets the Indian nuclear community interact with the world as equals.

I don't look for anything else from this deal, so I have no reason to wait with bated breath for Signing Statements or ENR deals or other generosity from Massa and the Oiropean flunkies.

The door is open. No sense in standing on H&D waiting for an official red-carpet protocol welcome to walk through it.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 05 Oct 2008 19:43

NRao sir,
I beg to differ. I guess you assume that India is a innocent stupid cow and the US is cunning wolf waiting to devour India, with its malafide intentions. The latter assumption may be true but the former is, frankly, not. We have demonstrated that in 1974. Whatever be the intentions of the US, do not expect India to dance to its tunes. And one more thing. there are USophobes, USophiles, and oppurtunists in all the political parties, except may be the lal jhandas.
Who takes the charge of things in our country depends on circumstances. India saw the Indira Gandhi era, under trying circumstances, when we flouted the US expectations for our national interest. Today conditions are a bit relaxed, and we are approaching the US for our own interests. If something happens tomorrow, and India needs to test, or take a foreign policy stance that is against the US' interests it may very well do so, depending on circumstances and on national interest. It is immaterial who is in charge of our country at that time. In all cases the nationalists will force their decision.
Indeed, if the US hopes to link India's strategic programme with this civilian deal, and expects India to toe its line, it is repeating its blunders done in past. Sanctions, as we have seen, can't
bring India to its knees. Military action by the US over India, we shall rule out...in case we test.

Regards
P

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Oct 2008 20:13

N^3,

Thanks. For an English post and no emoticons. thanks.

Travel day. will respond l8r in the PM.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2008 20:47

N^3, you are held to higher stds. Thats the burden of knowledge. Very easy to figure me out. Whatever benefits India - militarily, economically, politically and culturally I am for it.

Meanwhile Deccan Chronicle reprots on 5 Oct., 2008

Bush sets Oct. 8 date

New Delhi/Washington, Oct. 4: The US President, Mr George W. Bush, will sign the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal, approved by the Congress, into law on Wednesday, the White House said. It was not known if the document that Mr Bush will sign adequately addresses India’s concerns on nuclear fuel supply and enrichment. Earlier, the US secretary of state, Ms Condoleezza Rice, could not sign the 123 Agreement in Delhi but she made up for it by discussing the “next steps” in the India-US relationship, in areas such as collaboration in Afghanistan and defence.

In a joint news conference with the external affairs minister, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, Ms Rice said the deal was done and it’s only a matter of signing. “I don’t want anyone to think that we have open issues,” she said, adding there were administrative details that needed to be worked out. Mr Bush wants to do it soon, she said. Mr Mukherjee explained the delay by saying, “... after the signing by the President, the process will be complete.

And after the process is complete, we will be in a position to sign.” Sources indicated that Mr Mukherjee may fly to Washington for the signing. New Delhi expected Mr Bush to clarify certain issues, such as assured fuel supply, in his statement accompanying the signing of the legislation into law. New Delhi had concerns about the lack of legally-binding commitments on the part of Washington, which has extended only political assurances. Ms Rice said the US has been seeking an NSG-wide ban on transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology to non-NPT signatories such as India. Mr Mukherjee said the reprocessing issue will be addressed when India firms up bilateral pacts with “contracting parties”.

Looks like GOI did give an earful.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2008 21:31

Narayanan Ji,

That was a great inspiring post.

I think, our level of enthusiasm for the deal has been more or less the same (speaking of tall claims

). However you have more often than me kept the bigger picture in mind, while I have let at times my indignation and occasional pessimism get the better of me. But mostly, I have been a firm supporter of going ahead.

We did have different positions, just before the NSG vote. I was of the opinion, that this process should either give us a deal or a better tested nuclear deterrent. I believe, you were of the opinion, that this cycle of negotiation is only one iteration of the process, even as the process can be understood as somewhat longer drawn out. Since this iteration was sufficient to conclude the Nuclear Deal, our positions were not forced to go different ways.

Unlike you perhaps, I concede, I have been concerned about the nitty-gritty of the deal, but this was just my concern, that MMS should claw off as much as possible in this cycle of revision of the nuclear world order and retain the maximum flexibility for the scicom community. Many of us, have discussed these issues here, and I must say the contributions of all have helped me become a lot more knowledgeable (but my base was pretty low anyway.

)

I make this humble comparison, as one should try to compare oneself with high standards.

I am extremely glad, that MMS has taken us over the river, even if our feet have become a little muddy. India on this side of river has immensely more opportunities, than where we were. This heralds a new green revolution in India, both literally and metaphorically in the fields of renewable energy, nuclear industry, and expansion of our metallurgy and manufacturing base and all other fields where we would be able to access high-tech and dual-tech more easily across the world. This deal takes away the arm, with which many of the more advanced countries were keeping India at an arm's distance. More than ever, this deal has given Indians a renewed optimism in our future and that matters too.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 05 Oct 2008 21:48

Most of our fears regarding Uncle stems out of lack of faith in our politic leaders, babus etc. NDA government fixed few and now MMS has fixed few basic fundamental issues ( 5 ) came up of security and economic development. The benfits will be reaped in next decade . As long as we have few real patriorts among ruling elites we will do ok. Lets not worry that "doosre ki Dhoti me... always looks bigger".

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 05 Oct 2008 21:53

Ramana your patronizing posts were laughable now they are only irritating, can you do some introspection on this point?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 22:12

Rajesh, the nitty-gritty is of course very important, and "taking the overall view" means putting an awful lot of confidence in the System. When one reads of Cabinet Ministers selling national secrets for a bottle of Johny Walker, one has every right to be alarmed. But even there, the power of a large democracy is that the Will of the People smooths out all such gimmicks. It just takes frustratingly longer. If you look at the power of personal enticements and threats that must be dangled before people in the upper echelons of Indian public service (esp. the dismally low-paid, overworked scientific experts whom the US and UK embassies treat like dirt when they need to travel, and the Indian govt does not protect nearly enough) you have to wonder, but then you see someone like Arundhati Ghose standing tall before the full brunt of the NPAs and NSGs and Unkils and poodles in the CTBT bullying, and you begin to understand what real Indians are made of. Now that you saw the NSG tamasha, can you imagine what it was like for the Indian govt. in the NPT and CTBT bullying?

I firmly believe that Hyde etc. hurt only the US, and will in time be demolished. But for that to happen, the "Test Now!" lobby has to shut up.

Here is my prediction on CTBT: There is intense pressure from the US weapons community to resume testing, in order to validate new "deep penetrator" designs, and probably many other things. So I don't think Obama is going to have smooth sailing in getting CTBT through the COTUS. What will probably happen is that suddenly a window will open for a "Partial TBT" or "Strategic TBT" where tthe NWS allow themselves to do testing of devices UNDER, say, 200kT (just a wild guess). The idea is to get into the boosted fission range, but stay well under 1MT. I think India should prepare for that window, and take full advantage of it, instrumentation and all. Maybe it will be described as a Joint Fusion Environment Validation Experiment (JFEVE), a purely peaceful scientific experiment to understand the environment inside a fusion reactor under self-sustaining conditions. India should join it. This will be the Relief Valve to address the testing concerns of everyone. The NWS will crow that now 1MT and even 0.5MT weapons (Strategic Tests) have been banned.

CTBT will come after that, and be aimed to shut off TSP and NoKo.

ENR is a different scam, and you have to look where the $$ are in that. The IAEA wants to go to centralized reprocessing, and India, Japan, US and one other location (I forget, maybe Russia) are the preferred sites. As pressure mounts in the US about Yucca Mountain, and the prospect of glowing ships and trains all over the US, the US will become increasingly desperate to establish these regional reprocessing centers. So ENR is the US/NSG negotiating tool to win Indian approval of such facilities on better terms, with international safeguards. IOW, ENR will be made available "only for use in that facility" etc. (yeah, the Indian scientists who work on that will forget all about it every day when they take the bus home....)

Meanwhile, ENR restrictions will be eased as they become meaningless - IOW as Indian technology advances.

So its fine for India to hold Dubya's feet to the fire on this issue, and more power to the Indian negotiating team, but it's all gravy, no show-stopper there.

HOWEVER, all said and done, I am not particularly confident that the present GOI does not want to "CRE" the Indian nuclear arsenal. See the EJ thread for the reasons. On that point I share the dire fears of many postors here, and hope there is an election soon.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Oct 2008 22:20

renukb wrote:By linking civilian nook technology with Indian national security needs (testing a new nuke design or a weapon), US has successfully tried to contain India. Indians will be foolish to accept this form of a treaty with a dream of becoming a part of P6... Hell with P6... Our national security cannot and should not be contained by civilian deals with US or for that matter with any other nation.

This is the main point of the debate.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 05 Oct 2008 22:25

USA acts for the interests of the USA, not for India

Not an iota of a doubt about this. Right on the money.

India acts for the interests of India, not for the USA.

Not so sure about this, at least with the current Indian govt and future Indian govts if they are from the same stock. And thats why many of us are not so optimistic that this deal will play out to India's advantage.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 22:26

yes, that is the main point of the debate, because the notion that any Indian government now or in the next 20 years will go out and do a nuke test just out of routine weapon development compulsions, is so utterly laughable that one ceases to wonder about the motivations of those who keep parroting this. IOW, one knows, since all doubt is removed.

So the choice is to sit around in the dark with the reactors running at 50% power factor and the risk of catastrophes mounting, with no international acceptance of the nuke weapons program, in a perpetual rogue state status,

or to be an accepted NWS free to develop its arsenal while the world powers its reactors and boosts its industry into the 21st century.

Oh, yes, this is such a difficult choice.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2008 22:45

The conditions on testing are not contested for this very reason. India never did nor will test to proof weapons without extenuating circumustances. And thats why the supreme national interests statement is important and was made.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Oct 2008 22:55

a window will open for a "Partial TBT" or "Strategic TBT" where tthe NWS allow themselves to do testing of devices UNDER, say, 200kT (just a wild guess)

Err...the TTBT of 1974?

Threshold Test Ban Treaty

The Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests, also known as the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT), was signed in July 1974. It establishes a nuclear "threshold," by prohibiting tests having a yield exceeding 150 kilotons (equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT).

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 22:58

Gerard, how did France (forget China) test MT-class weapons in 1996? Clearly those were not atmospheric tests? So the TTBT was signed but ignored? I never heard of that one before.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Oct 2008 23:06

There is intense pressure from the US weapons community to resume testing

Funding for RRW was been cut by Congress because opponents fear (justifiably) that the US military will demand proof testing of any weapon it fields.
But warhead life extension brings testing demands of its own..... see Bodman and Gates....

National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century
By Samuel Bodman, Secretary of Energy and Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
September 2008
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/d ... 092308.pdf

While the service lives of existing warhead types are being extended through
refurbishment, at present the United States does not have the ability to produce new
nuclear weapons.
...
However, the current path for sustaining the warhead stockpile—successive refurbishments of existing Cold War warheads designed with small margins of error—may be unsustainable in the future. Specifically, the directors of the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories have expressed concern about the ability to ensure confidence in the reliability of the legacy stockpile over the long term, without nuclear testing. Successive efforts at extending the service life of the current inventory of warheads will drive the warhead configurations further away from the original design baseline that was validated using underground nuclear test data. Repeated refurbishments will accrue technical changes that, over time, might inadvertently undermine reliability and performance. The skills, materials, processes, and technologies needed to refurbish and maintain these older warhead designs are also increasingly difficult to sustain or acquire. Some of the materials employed in these older warheads are extremely hazardous. Moreover, it is difficult to incorporate modern safety and security features into Cold War- era weapon designs. As a consequence, the stockpile stewardship program is expanding its range of component and material testing and analysis, and is likely to identify more areas of concern. However, without nuclear testing, at some time in the future the United States may be unable to confirm the effect of the accumulation of changes to tested warhead configurations.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Oct 2008 23:12

TTBT is a big boys treaty - US-Soviet.

Neither France nor China signed the PTBT (unlike India) far less something like the TTBT.
Last French atmospheric test was 1974. Last Chinese one was in 1980. Clearly both lacked the confidence in their ability to develop nuclear weapons without atmospheric testing at full yield.

The 1996 French tests were far from MT range. That is obsolete with modern MIRVed SLBM accuracy.
Yields were 20kt, 150kt, 60 kt, 60kt, 100 kt.

Modern TN weapons are 100kt. Aim is to be small, light and reliable.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 23:16

And that is a part of the excuses why the COTUS will not ratify the CTBT unless in November the House and Senate come back 90% Democrat. The other part is the Deep Penetrator program. Unless I am seriously mistaken, Deep Penetrator uses successive nuclear explosions in precisely timed sequence to clear the path to the final big boom deep underground, though I cannot imagine how this can be done. Maybe a forward flux of fast neutrons from a first warhead to vaporize the material like a blowtorch, before the following warhead rams through and explodes deep under? I imagine that these things need some validation testing... and will be regarded as Supreme National Interest. The Iran, NoKo and Afghanistan tamashas are definitely building up towards such arguments.

During the Cold War and Star Wars, there was a satellite-based X-ray laser that was supposed to work by exploding a nuclear weapon on the satellite. The initial burst of X-rays, traveling at speed of light, would bounce off a mirror and focus down as a laser onto its target (ICBM?) in the picoseconds before the blast wave reached the mirror. Maybe they have figured out how to use this as a hole-drilling mechanism?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Oct 2008 23:18

Clearly both lacked the confidence in their ability to develop nuclear weapons without atmospheric testing at full yield.

Or had movie contracts and wanted to watch the ships, tanks etc. in the area vaporize, through the fancy dark glasses.

As the saying goes:

Half the fun is watching the buildings fall

Not funny post 9/11/01.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 05 Oct 2008 23:48

My point, if you re-read my post, is that Japan has managed to rise to near-superpower status within the same time that India has had since Independence. They did so, starting as a crushed, enslaved colony of the US, hated around the world. Today they are respected the world over.

If Japan can do it, so can India. One for one, Indians are no less smart or hard-working or determined than Japanese (at least, we can find enough Indians to match every Japanese one for one).

Thats complete nonsense. Japan was lucky to have an security umbrella. No baki,chini problem. They got access to latest nuclear tech and then improved on it. It is a small homogeneous society with hard working people. It had Industrial base even before war. They spent nothing on defense until recently. Half of the posts are filled up with kachra like this.............please guys go serious. Think before. If you still have to write 5 pages everyday..........go to nukkad thread and get over with it.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Oct 2008 23:55

rsingh wrote:
My point, if you re-read my post, is that Japan has managed to rise to near-superpower status within the same time that India has had since Independence. They did so, starting as a crushed, enslaved colony of the US, hated around the world. Today they are respected the world over.

If Japan can do it, so can India. One for one, Indians are no less smart or hard-working or determined than Japanese (at least, we can find enough Indians to match every Japanese one for one).
Thats complete nonsense. Japan was lucky to have an security umbrella. No baki,chini problem. They got access to latest nuclear tech and then improved on it. It is a small homogeneous society with hard working people. It had Industrial base even before war. They spent nothing on defense until recently. Half of the posts are filled up with kachra like this.............please guys go serious. Think before. If you still have to write 5 pages everyday..........go to nukkad thread and get over with it.

Finally some sense. Japan never had to spend on defence much for 50 years.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Oct 2008 00:15

Who can compete with "sense" such as that?

OK, rsingh, I am going to respond in kind, because that's the only stuff that may get through the skulls of ____ like you.

Who do you think pays for the US forces stationed in Japan? Who paid for the Japanese self-defense forces, which are pretty advanced? The "security umbrella" is given free? Or your ____ provides it? Does Japan not feel threatened by the North Koreans, chinese and Russians? JAPAN DOES NOT SPEND ON DEFENCE?

And in any event, are you saying that it is the lack of need to do defence development that made Japan industrially advanced? How many nations do you know where lack of defence R&D drives innovation in technology? THIS is SENSE to your ____?

Please try getting a ____ before you come here and post ____. Or, take your own advice and go live in the nukkad thread.

As for Acharya, you need to give up on parroting ____ stuff like the renukb post. Your political ____ propaganda and your ____ conspiracy theories have crossed all thresholds of patient tolerance. You have not posted an objective post on any topic in the past 3 years. Maybe its time to face reality that you can't.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 06 Oct 2008 01:11

Who do you think pays for the US forces stationed in Japan? Who paid for the Japanese self-defense forces, which are pretty advanced? The "security umbrella" is given free? Or your ____ provides it? Does Japan not feel threatened by the North Koreans, chinese and Russians? JAPAN DOES NOT SPEND ON DEFENCE?

Read before you write......you are again writing nonsense. Go through postwar history. Just by having fancy name you do not become an know-it-all-guy. Do your homework first.

And in any event, are you saying that it is the lack of need to do defence development that made Japan industrially advanced? How many nations do you know where lack of defence R&D drives innovation in technology? THIS is SENSE to your pea-brain?

Listen man .....you have been ____ around for long. Read first and then reply.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Oct 2008 01:50

Gerard wrote:Modern TN weapons are 100kt. Aim is to be small, light and reliable.

I guess then the US main stay of 475 KT is not modern?

What have some of the foremost Indian military planners asked for?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 06 Oct 2008 02:00

N-saar, not a big dispute with what you say, but may I suggest to take a close look at the Korean establishment? IMO, a better example for India could be Skoreans. Buggers always fly under the radar, never appear threatening and yet accomplished all that the Japanese accomplished during the 80s without any fanfare. The Japanese underwent (and succumbed) to massive psyops on the level of their threat to Americans. A path the chinese are going down right now. But the Koreans learned their lessons well. Their achievements/accomplishments have been across the board, be it scientific, technical, cultural or be it using the force of the enemy against itself.

* obvious skills in MNC and brand building from scratch.
* SKoreans too have an idiotic and disruptive enemy next door, supported by a familiar evil, the PLA.
* they cynically used US security umbrella, yet were doing heavy research in boom-grade glowing things, citing NKorean threat. The same NK, that will for sure be unified with them one day. What happens to the boom reasearch? will the discard it in Han river?

* had made huge progress in building up a serious conventional arms industry. Enough to start threatening atleast European industries. And they have good mijjile programs across spectrum.
* Utilized EJ's money and even started mounting a challenge to them in Deep South, in the form Rev Moon etc. Last I heard they are still heavy on "Goryeo Tripitaka", even the ones that visit Amerkhans
* Pragmatic approach to issues and stubborn bargaining. All that is done far away from mass media.
* does

to US's entertainment industry's projection of the "benign American influence that is needed for this world to survive", the recent one that jolted Hollywood being the movie "Gwoemul".

And all of this is done with minimal fanfare or chest thumping. We all know how different, the indigenisation effort in India was handled between Hyundai and Suzuki.

I agree, we are at the end of Phase I. It is upto us to decide what Phase II should be. And a lot of inputs will come from what happened during Phase I, including who was always with us, who was not and who got converted to our side.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 06 Oct 2008 02:13

Part of the difficulty in this discourse is the enormous sense of entitlement some Indians carry with them, the ancients were great in mathematics, spirituality etc; we aspire to not eat animals, we have 150 million potential terrorists, we never invaded anyone, we were victimised etc.

America was not going to recognise India's greatness AND autonomy until its nuclear establishment, its financial mandarins, populist democrats did what they have done the hard way. Unfortunately in today's big bad world you need hard power out of a mushroom cloud, not weepy Indian movies to convince the world you are worth engaging.

Thus don't be surprised that the world does want something in return and that strings will be attached and honeymoons will be temporary. Can India ride that?

South Korea is an interesting example but quite frankly I expect perhaps Gujarat to be South Korea, I except all-India to be destined for bigger things.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 06 Oct 2008 02:20

Gentlemen, please desist from personal attacks on each other. Thanks.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Oct 2008 02:24

rsingh wrote: Thats complete nonsense. Japan was lucky to have an security umbrella. No baki,chini problem. They got access to latest nuclear tech and then improved on it. It is a small homogeneous society with hard working people. It had Industrial base even before war. They spent nothing on defense until recently.

I agree with this but you could have said this without picking a fight with N^3. H

Japan did/does not have the kind of impediments India has, chief among them being lack of a coherent nationalist ideology uniting Indians. Except possibly what the weather is on any given day, Indians (and some even object to be called Indians) across the length & breadth can hardly agree on anything else.

At the end of the day, while Japanese are admired for their economic prowess, I doubt they are 'respected'. And for the most part they are "YES" men to the Americans with no real independence as such to speak of. And remember, any simple trade dispute, Americans go bersek, remind the Japanese of the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and Japanese relent. Recall former US senator from South Carolina, Fritz Holling's re-election ad which was a super hit, bashing Japanese in the backdrop of the mushroom cloud. Is this the kind of power India ought to aspire to become?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Oct 2008 02:25

ShauryaT wrote:
Gerard wrote:Modern TN weapons are 100kt. Aim is to be small, light and reliable.
I guess then the US main stay of 475 KT is not modern?
What have some of the foremost Indian military planners asked for?

The W76 warhead far outnumbers any other weapon in the US arsenal. It is 100 kt. Its RRW replacement was supposed to be of similar yield. So the mainstay of the US arsenal is 100 kt.

The entire British arsenal is W76 based.

The yields of the last Chinese tests (their latest warheads) were 90kt.

The French TN-75 on their SSBNs is 100kt.

The Russian Bulava SLBM will carry 100kt warheads.

The US and Russian 455 and 550 kt warheads are indeed modern but they are deployed in smaller numbers (in the case of the US) and primarily aimed at hardened targets - reflecting the counterforce strategy of both nations. Russia has a greater proportion of higher yield (550kt) compared to their SLBM force (>600 100kt warheads). Russia itself intends to expand their SSBN force.

The oft-repeated demands for deploying Indian megaton yield weapons is bizarre. I could understand a demonstration MT shot, part of a test series that included 100-200kt proof tests but the idea that India needs megaton weapons to deter China is absurd.

The French M51 SLBM will carry six TNOs, their most sophisticated TN design - 100kt, small, hardened, stealthy, accurate. Does any potential opponent not consider the French arsenal to be formidable? A serious deterrent?

This is the class of warhead that India needs for the K15 and future naval Agni variant. Not obsolete megaton ones.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Oct 2008 03:10

Narayanan ji, excellent posts! Great insight, and brilliant reading, despite some editing (wish it was original though). In the past few months, despite Rajesh jis modesty, i have been relying on your both observations on events. They have always seemed objective and enlightening. I have been a pro dealer right through. I have observed some pro dealers come with arguments last year and been bitterly baited and banned as a result of their responses to baiting. There have been people who stuck out, not because everything fell into the right places, but because of a better understanding of politics that is not based on the socialist past but of a confidant India in the future. The same that anti-liberization folks in the 90's were fearing never happened. India became stronger and stronger. I remember arguing and going hoarse on ending license raj years before 91 happened to bring out Indians trapped entrepreunial spirit.

Vision is not something easily panderable as a political/ economic or strategic reality, not at least in 91 neither in 2008. I've seen arguments here calling NK upright! 1991 was got into backdoor. Thanks to PVNR. This also has to be pushed down the socialist throat. Frankly many anti-deal folks here are the legacy of a socialist knee jerk anti US legacy. That is justified more in their attacks on US intentions than on the capability and ability of the Indian response as a much more mature economy and consequential power 5 or 10 years down the line.

Rajesh Ji and Narayanan Ji..you have done a splendid job elucidating various aspects of the deal on this forum. I personally appreciate your efforts and look forward to more unadulterated posts and analysis from both of you folks.