India nuclear news and discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2008 02:46

X-Posted..

Vivek_A wrote:crap-on is POed

Reckoning to come later

Michael Krepon
How much the Bush administration has weakened the global system designed to prevent further horizontal and vertical proliferation depends on whether India tests again and how much further IAEA and the NSG standards unravel

The global system designed to prevent and reverse proliferation was built on bedrock conservative principles. In designing this structure, US presidents have methodically sought to establish norms through treaties and laws that penalise proliferation and incentivise responsible behaviour.

Establishing rules against proliferation hasn’t prevented rule breaking, but it has helped to isolate and penalise bad actors. The foundation of this structure was built around the 1968 Non-proliferation Treaty. Two of its key bulwarks are the International Atomic Energy Agency, which carries out inspections at nuclear facilities, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates commerce. These bodies still have multiple weaknesses, but they have helped keep proliferation in check.

True conservatives don’t undermine institutions and norms that serve essential purposes without having something better to take their place. The Bush administration chose a different course to promote nuclear power plant construction in India. The profits and jobs created will go elsewhere – primarily to Russia and France – but the downside risks of placing profit taking ahead of non-proliferation principles could be far-reaching and widely shared.

One mark of the NPT’s remarkable success is how much attention we rightly pay to the few countries that do not play by its rules. More than 180 countries faithfully abide by the NPT’s legal framework. IAEA inspection teams carried out more than 1,700 inspections at nuclear facilities last year alone, and regulations against nuclear commerce that could result in proliferation have been systematically toughened.

One critical protection against proliferation is the IAEA’s principle that safeguards are to be placed in perpetuity on nuclear facilities subject to inspection. Another is the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s principle that nuclear suppliers should operate by consensus before changing the rules of nuclear commerce. The consensus rule has made the NSG the world’s most unusual cartel, designed to prevent profit taking when proliferation would likely result.

The Bush administration has bent these fundamental principles out of shape in lobbying the IAEA and the NSG to change the rules on India’s behalf. There is no mention of the word “perpetuity” for safeguards in India, and New Delhi has consistently asserted that safeguards would be lifted if there are disruptions in foreign fuel supplies at power plants. The primary reason for disruption would be a resumption of nuclear testing by India. Moreover, the Bush administration has stood the NSG’s consensus rule on its head: Now consensus will be required to stop nuclear commerce with India.

Russian and French firms will reap most of the benefits of these rule changes because they have very little US competition. Westinghouse’s nuclear power division has been purchased by Toshiba, and GE will be constrained from building nuclear power plants in India unless New Delhi enacts liability waivers against costly accidents. This will not be easy because Indian politicians have long memories of the terrible industrial accident that killed perhaps 20,000 living around a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal in 1984.

The net consequences of these rule changes are not hard to predict: If and when India resumes nuclear testing, Russia and France will argue that fuel supplies (and profits) must continue to keep Indian power plants under safeguards. Profit taking is likely to trump non-proliferation, despite the clear legislative intent of the US Congress, which, in passing the Hyde Act, set conditions designed to make it harder for India to resume nuclear testing.

It’s a bad idea to tilt the playing field in the direction of renewed nuclear testing, especially when making the IAEA and the NSG accomplices to this act. How much the Bush administration has weakened the global system designed to prevent further horizontal and vertical proliferation depends on whether India tests again and how much further IAEA and the NSG standards unravel. It will be challenging to confine the profit motive in troubling cases to just one country.

India has tested a hydrogen bomb design only once, and it is very hard for any state to certify this capability after a single test, which may not have been fully successful. If India tests again to develop more compact, powerful nuclear weapons, Pakistan will almost surely follow suit, as may other states. China, India and Pakistan will then find more reason to ramp up their nuclear forces.

Bringing India into the mainstream of nuclear non-proliferation is essential. The crux of the problem is how to do so in ways that reinforce, rather than undermine the conservative principles underlying the global non-proliferation system. The Bush administration hasn’t come remotely close to meeting this test.

Michael Krepon is co-founder of the Henry L Stimson Centre in Washington, DC. He is the author of Better Safe than Sorry, The Ironies of Living with the Bomb (Stanford University Press, forthcoming). This article first appeared in the Washington Times on September 28, 2008

Quite whine. But something to be happy about. All that imported fuel will allow more of the low yield ones!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Oct 2008 02:48

I don't have more details (had to turn off the radio because I was pulling into a bank drive-in, actually) but the point that struck me was that while India goes through all this public hair-pulling and yelling to get some Certificate of Admissibility from the NSG, COTUS, IAEA etc etc., the Pakis get their stuff just by cool "secret discussions" with the Chinese. If it is all IAEA-approve NSG-approved where is the need for "secrecy"? It's clearly something in the non-civilian sector that the Commies are giving the Pakis, quite blatantly.

Where is the yelling against Chinese violation of the NPT? Karat sending Notes Verbale to the Chinese Ambassador? Naxal Ram and Sid-Harth Varadarajan writing flaming editorials against the Chinese? Sokolski and Kendall and Krap-on writing blistering attacks on their Drunk-Tank Blogs?

Liars and thieves one and all.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 10 Oct 2008 02:51

Narayanan wrote:

Liars and thieves one and all.

Every one of them is a paid or unpaid agent working to further the interests of the Chinese communist party. These people like Michael Krepon clearly do not believe they have to protect the interests of their own countrymen, the americans. They allow the chinese to proliferate to one of america's worst enemies -- the same people who created 9/11 and would not mind repeating that if they could. What do you call the likes of Krepon if you are an American?

N. Ram and his mates in Chindu like SV have always been batting for the chinese like the Karats and the CPI(M) -- no surprise there. What is surprising is the NPAs like Krepon openly batting for China and Pakistan.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Oct 2008 02:57

The NSG Waiver has given India the undeniable right to YELL also. Why do we have to always wait on the NPAs when China is doing proliferation?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Oct 2008 03:57

narayanan wrote:NRaoji:

I for one do NOT see the "E" as a problem at all, but don't think it should be discussed either. I see it as a driver of indigenous R&D involving a lot of hi-tech advancements, and I would be faaaaaar happier having these under continued import restrictions so that Indian money is not wasted on buying third-hand stuff, instead it should go into fast-paced strategic-sector R&D.

As u know, I am a big fan of sanctions as the only hope to nurture Indian technological advancement and minimize the "fact-finding trade missions" and "offset transfer agreements" that end up funding foreign weapon manufacturers to develop the next gift to the Pakistani Air Force using the hard-won tax or remittance $$ of the resident or non-resident Indian. I agree with the need to buy a few reactors and get some imported fuel to run them, but that's it. The rest, I hope, all remains under "sanctions". So I am quite happy with the deal as it stands.

Yup, I agree.

Like I said, NO ONE is going to "give" enrichment technology beyond 20 percent to India IN PUBLIC. if you samajh what I soch.

This one is a quantum switch from narayanan the guru to the 2 year old narayanan. Firstly there is no enrichment technology that limits one to onleee 20% enrichment (like a turbojet aircraft's cruise ceiling. Enrichment technology is like a truck that can deliver goods as far as Nagpur, or Kanpur or even Hoshiarpur. As far as you want as long has the engine has power to turn teh wheel. Any enrichment equipment whose output is more enriched than its input can obviously enrich the material to very high level and not be limited to just 20% enrichment.

Now the million dallar kquestion (sic) is what does India want to do with enrichment technology it has in hand or want to import from bidesh? Can it enrich imported N fuel to >20% enrichment for fully IAEA accounted and legitimate use? AFAIK the answer is NO. Which begs the question why >20% civil N fuel enrichment hurts someone's interest so much that they go though the pain to put that 20% number in spite of Indian reluctance?

The only reason that comes to my mind is : that number is there to ensure that India does not use the imported fuel to generate power for Leelawati and Kalawati using uniquely Indian fuel cycle based on AHWR. Thorium based AHWR generate ~80% (IIRC or is it 90%) of the energy from thorium and its own reprocessed spent fuel rods. Prior to "US-India Nuclear Cooperation and Nonproliferation Enhancement"

Arun_S wrote:(some would have noticed the agreement is no more called by its J18 name "US-India civil nuclear cooperation" but by its new name that has the "civil" removed {because now Yindian non-civil i.e. weapons capability is tried in a "nas-bandi" knot}, and whereas J18 dealt with only civil nuclear energy, now it is also about "Nonproliferation Enhancement". Yet I keep hearing a BRFits who sounds like a broken record and till now says this deal is only about civil nuclear energy. )

the Indian 3 stage N fuel cycle necessitate FBR to generate excess fuel to bridge AHWR's overall free neutron deficit. The Thorium based AHWR reactors require highly enriched fuel (much greater than 20%) to operate. The original idea was to use only reprocessed Plutonium and U233 as the driver fuel, but enriched Uranium will also do the job. However US and its cartel that control global energy market, does not want India to brake free from its energy cartel carefully built over the last 80 years, by using imported fuel to feed the AHWR's neutron gap. This is the genesis that required the poison pill of 20% enrichment limit on all imported fuel no matter if the enrichment technology is local or imported.

So why lose sleep over lack of imported enrichment technology for DAE? As if it makes any difference to light up the hut of Kalawati or Leelavati!

Let us have some chai biskoot and enjoy the virtual reality fun around the water hole called BR discussion forum.

My personal opinion onleee.. .. . .

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 04:11

DAE exhibition at Vienna focuses on thorium use

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2008 04:14

What if the AHWR is on the non-civlian side? There are no restrictions on enriching to any level in that area.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 04:26

http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol13_3/ahwr.htm

The reactor physics design is tuned for maximising the use of thorium based fuel, and achieving a slightly negative void coefficient of reactivity. The fulfillment of these requirements has been possible through the use of PuO2-ThO2 MOX, and ThO2-U233O2 MOX in different pins of the same fuel cluster,

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 04:38

http://www.igcar.ernet.in/lis/nl59/igc59.pdf

Driver fuel of PFBR is a mixed oxide of Pu and natural U with two different compositions viz. 21 and 28% of PuO2 for the two enrichment zones

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Oct 2008 06:02

Arun, this is DSKB (do saal ka batcha) narayanan again:

Isn't the issue that there are enrichment technologies that are more EFFICIENT than other technologies? For instance, Pakis use the technique of thousands of centrifuges to do the enrichment to weapons grade.

I had the impression that there are exotic technologies that beat the heck out of the painful solvent extraction/ centrifuging which is very unproductive. I have noooo idea what these are, except that maybe they involve laser heating or something like that.

So the issue is the cost and speed of enrichment. As for the 20% limit, I don't know enough to argue whether the limit (which appears to apply worldwide) is really driven by malicious intent against India's 3-stage ambitions, or by concerns about Abdul bin Kabul with glowing pockets. Maybe 20 percent is not even good to make dirty bombs, but then how is it used in reactors? I don't know. Or maybe the issue is that if the enrichment is held to 20%, the error in accounting, for instance due to stuff stuck in pipes, etc., is not large enough to allow meaningful and systematic diversion into the weapons program or Abdul's programs.

Sorry, but for reasons of self-preservation I have usually maintained a Monkey No See - Monkey No Ask - Monkey Don't Wanna Know attitude when I have had the opportunity to learn about these things at exotic places.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2008 06:46

Now the million dallar kquestion (sic) is what does India want to do with enrichment technology it has in hand or want to import from bidesh? Can it enrich imported N fuel to >20% enrichment for fully IAEA accounted and legitimate use? AFAIK the answer is NO. Which begs the question why >20% civil N fuel enrichment hurts someone's interest so much that they too pain to put that 20% number in spite of Indian reluctance?

The only reason that comes to my mind is : that number is there to ensure that India does not use the imported fuel to generate power for Leelawati and Kalawati using uniquely Indian fuel cycle based on AHWR. Thorium based AHWR generate ~80% (IIRC or is it 90%) of the energy from thorium and its own reprocessed spent fuel rods. Prior to "US-India Nuclear Cooperation and Nonproliferation Enhancement"

So, that confirms what I posted earlier. And, it makes sense.

What if the AHWR is on the non-civlian side? There are no restrictions on enriching to any level in that area.

As long as imported anything is not used. Note that Indian ore is fairly useless in terms of % of 235 in it.

Isn't the issue that there are enrichment technologies that are more EFFICIENT than other technologies? For instance, Pakis use the technique of thousands of centrifuges to do the enrichment to weapons grade.

Talking with Aragone Labs and Hanford people, it is tech that are specific to a waste. The method is the same PUREX, or whatever, but since each design has its own wonky set of waste chemicals, the means to deal with the specific set of chemicals vary from vendor to vendor.

It is my understanding that Indian reproc techs will not be efficient (not that they cannot use them) to deal with say a FR reactor waste.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2008 06:50

IIRC, Gerard mentioned that 20% is an IAEA std.

I have to suspect it has to deal with fissile material issues and therefore proliferation.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Oct 2008 06:53

We seem to be back to

mode. After being a pariah for 30 plus years is it any surprise that the process towards "full membership" will be done in stages i.e salami slicing as somebody has eloquently put it.

Is India better of compared to what it was 6 months ago? Undeniably yes.

Is this agreement a home run?
No it is not.

What are the immediate benefits?
Ability to import reactors and fuel and advance consent for reprocessing subject to a dedicated facility being set up.

What has not yet been achieved?
I would maintain that the FBR and AHWR fuel cycles relative to imported uranium are grey areas.

However, if FBRs (multiple units) are placed on the civilian side, the output from the FBRs will be already beyond the IAEA threshold for bum making and as required as driver fuel for the AHWRs. I believe that the procedures for handling that issue will be done at a later date. That will be the only way that the spent fuel from these imported LWRs (30,000MW according to the SK Jain interview) can be used to kickstart large scale AHWR commercialisation.

But patience is required.... one step at a time... Continouly

will not achieve anything.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2008 07:08

What has not yet been achieved?
I would maintain that the FBR and AHWR fuel cycles relative to imported uranium are grey areas.

However, if FBRs (multiple units) are placed on the civilian side, the output from the FBRs will be already beyond the IAEA threshold for bum making and as required as driver fuel for the AHWRs. I believe that the procedures for handling that issue will be done at a later date. That will be the only way that the spent fuel from these imported LWRs (30,000MW according to the SK Jain interview) can be used to kickstart large scale AHWR commercialisation.

Bhai Saheb,

In your urgency to post emoticons you seem to have missed the point.

The issue of purity is directly related to breeding (and producing electricity). The FBTR required 85%.

So, this is not a grey area.

Even when India - per AK's plan - decides to get FBR to civi side (in 2020), it will need fuel that is greater than 20% purity (forget how much more)? Am I right (or wrong)? Where is that supposed to come from - on the civilian side.

I do see that you agree with me when you say "I believe that the procedures for handling that issue will be done at a later date." - I said "kick that can".

Bush has been very, very kind and stated that he provides "consent". Oh yeah, consent to reproc. India asked for techs - one step after consent I would think.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 07:11

Note that Indian ore is fairly useless in terms of % of 235 in it.

Indian Uranium has the same percentage (0.7%) of U235 in it as Australian (or Kazakh or Niger) Uranium.

Most Indian ore is low grade (<0.1% total Uranium in the ore). Jaduguda deposit is 0.06%. This is similar to Australia's Olympic dam deposit (0.06%). Rossing in Namibia is 0.4% Uranium. Canada's McArthur River deposit is 25.6%. The waste tailings at a Canadian mine are probably richer than Indian ore.

The fast breeder will use 20% Plutonium. It will use natural Uranium.
Zero Uranium enrichment. The fissile U235 is still 0.7%.

The AHWR will use MOX fuel of two types. One type uses U233. There is no U235 or U238 in the Thorium-U233 MOX fuel. The Uranium part is 100% fissile U233. Nothing to enrich. It is already 100%.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Oct 2008 07:20

NRaoji,

Are you stating that the fuel for the FBR is enriched uranium to 85%?

Look at Gerard's link for the driver fuel for the FBR. Also what will the FBR breed? It can breed a variety of fuels. What will be the output from the FBR if e.g. Th-232 is bred? Also, what does the AHWR need besides driver fuel? It is the driver fuel that has to be beyond the IAEA cut off.

But the point is that a few years down the road with a mountain of spent fuel and the production capability to kickstart large scale AHWR commercialisation and some confidence built up over the intervening years, that India has actually accounted for all those individual grams of fuel, and with a larger economy, and if Indian politicians play their then much stronger cards correctly, who knows what will be the outcome.

But to sit today and

continously is not going to achieve anything.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 07:22

As regards centrifuge technology, Ayatollah Albright claims that India is operating supercritical maraging steel and carbon fibre rotor centrifuges. ATV naval reactor is supposedly 30-45% enriched according to Ayatollah Ramana. If this is fed back into the centrifuge cascade, enrichment to weapon grade is readily achieved (if desired).
If India wants to increase production, it has to (a) manufacture more centrifuges (b) design higher SWU ones (like Massa's)

India also has an experimental laser enrichment program.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Oct 2008 07:24

BUT BUSH DIDN'T GIVE INDIA PERMISSION TO TEST!!! I WANT 1 MEGATON TEST NOW!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2008 07:26

Thanks G.

I did find this Mar, 2000 article from DAE:

The fuel chosen for PFBR is uranium-plutonium mixed oxide, with plutonium content of 21 % and 27 % in two different regions of the reactor. Even though this fuel has been studied extensively, specific studies are needed to master some aspects of the fuel cycle.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2008 07:55

ldev ji,

I will have to find the url for you which stated 85%, but just google and you can find urls that state "weapons grade plutonium".

Will catch up tomorrow.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Oct 2008 08:08

NRao wrote:ldev ji,

I will have to find the url for you which stated 85%, but just google and you can find urls that state "weapons grade plutonium".

Will catch up tomorrow.

NRao,

The objectives of the FBRs on the civilian side in this context is not to produce "weapons grade plutonium". It is to breed driver fuel for the AHWRs. That changes the equation considerably. I dont even want to get into "weapons grade plutonium". Remember.... this is a civilian nuclear agreement.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 08:14

The PFBR will use reactor grade Pu. This is about 25% Pu240 (at typical burnup) compared to weapon grade (< 7% Pu240).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 08:16

Weapon-Grade Plutonium Production Potential in the Indian Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor
http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/talk2 ... nceton.pdf

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Oct 2008 08:27

Thanks Gerard for the link. The axial blanket produces some very pure maal <4% Pu-240.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Oct 2008 09:12

NRao wrote: The FBTR required 85%.

So, this is not a grey area.

Even when India - per AK's plan - decides to get FBR to civi side (in 2020), it will need fuel that is greater than 20% purity (forget how much more)? Am I right (or wrong)? Where is that supposed to come from - on the civilian side.

I do see that you agree with me when you say "I believe that the procedures for handling that issue will be done at a later date." - I said "kick that can".

Bush has been very, very kind and stated that he provides "consent". Oh yeah, consent to reproc. India asked for techs - one step after consent I would think.

Correct the above to reader FBTR as AHWR, then what you say above is correct.

Thorium based AHWR requires its core populated with driver fuel consisting of fuel rod that has ~90% fissile fuel. I.e. made of reprocessed Pu, or could be highly enriched Uranium. The latter path is used by IIRC the Canadian future reactor that also uses Thorium, that reactor design is a derivative to Canadian HWR. Of course Indian AHWR is also very similar and based in INDU design that in turn is a variant of original CANDU. The 20% Uranium enrichment limit prevents India from fast tracking the exponential growth of Thorium based AHWR, and forces the civilian AHRW to be boot strapped to the output of Indian FBR, which in turn is boot strapped to the 40GWe imported LWR by 2020 garden path laid out by DAE/AKakodkar.

IOW grease up the wheel PLUS stay behind the power curve of global energy cartel.

Gerard wrote:The AHWR will use MOX fuel of two types. One type uses U233. There is no U235 or U238 in the Thorium-U233 MOX fuel. The Uranium part is 100% fissile U233. Nothing to enrich. It is already 100%.

Correct.
The type that use U233 (from reprocessing) will work the same as fuel rod made of >90% U235 (read highly enriched Uranium). That being the point of using highly enriched U235 for civilian power generation for the huts of Leelawati & Kalavati, of course after first meeting the demands of air-conditioners in N Delhi.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Oct 2008 10:13

Arun_S wrote:
fanne wrote:amit,
if you have something to contribute then di it!!!!!!!!
Why don't you go after Gurumurthy's arguments, why bring Swadeshi into it? Are you afraid that you cannot argues against his points?
rgds,
fanne
Ditto. I was going to respond to Amit with exactly the same reposte. "Are you afraid that you cannot argues against his points?" that one is going after his birth?
Fanne you saved me the effort. Thks.

Arun_S,

I've been a bit busy and so haven't been able to log into BRF for any length of time. Hence my late response.

Can you explain what exact you mean by this statement: "that one is going after his birth?"

Where exactly have I gone after Gurumurthy's birth?

Are you denying that his Swadeshi Jagaran Manch was very active against the then government and the finance minister when the first tentative process of liberalisation was taking place? If you are then all I can say is I'm speechless at this rewriting of history.

My point in exclaiming on the Gurumurthy's piece is very simple.

I find an uncanny similarity in the forces that are arrayed against the nuclear deal and the forces which were arrayed against the 1992 liberalisation. The same far Left, the same far Right and of course the assortment of Medha Pathkar, Arundhuti Roy types. The only star missing was Gurumurhty saab - till the post by Philip I hadn't seen an article by him - on BRF - about the nuclear deal (of course I could have missed them).

Hence my exclamation. The circle (of opposition) has been completed IMHO.

And yes, in case you've forgotten Gurumurthy was pretty well known even before the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch was set up. The Manch did not give him birth as a celebrity.

Coming back to your birth comment, its my belief that we usually judge others' comments and intentions on the basis of our own feelings and intentions.

I can only guess what you're intentions are in this case. I just hope you do not put too much of an emphasis on a person's "birth" and less on "content and context" of what he/she says or does.

Cheers!

Added later: In case folks would like to check out the antecedents of the Manch please see the Wiki link here

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Oct 2008 10:34

Katare wrote: Gurumurthy takes extremist positions on issues and his views can be questioned on the political/idiological grounds.

Would you two argue with the views of Arundhati Roy or Prafool Bidwai(as he is called at BRF) or numerous other jurnos who are laughed at and called numerous names @ BRF. Why have a separate standard for amit? As for as I can see he didn't call him names.

Katare,

Thanks for your support.

I don't think many here know that Gurumurthy used to be a hatched man for Ramnath Goneka when Indian Express was gunning for Reliance in the late eighties. From a virtual non entity he became a celebrity.

The great Ramnath Goneka was egged on by Nusli Wadia.

At that time, in the late eighties, Bombay Dyeing along with some of the "old money" textile houses had ganged up against Dhirubhai Ambani in order to "teach the upstart a lesson" as one famous textile tycoon had said at that time, if my memory serves me right.

People signing paeans for Gurumurthy saab would do well to look up some of his past articles and political affiliations before taking whatever he writes to be a paragon of objectivity.

PS: May be I'm held to different standards - and this is not the first time - because I raise some inconvenient issues?

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 10 Oct 2008 12:18

Aims behind the U.S.-India nuclear deal
http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/10 ... deal/9111/

Ningbo, China — U.S. President George W. Bush signed the long-expected nuclear deal with India into law on Wednesday, following its approval by the U.S. Congress last week. A formal bilateral document will be signed Friday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

With this deal, the United States is formally embracing India as its nuclear partner, breaking Washington’s three-decade barricade against transferring nuclear technology to New Delhi, which conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and again in 1998.

Critics of the deal say that it undermines years of international efforts in banning weapons of mass destruction, and could weaken efforts to persuade countries like North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.

Before the Senate vote, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin voiced objections to the bill. "If we pass this legislation, we will reward India for flouting the most important arms control agreement in history, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and we will gravely undermine our case against hostile nations that seek to do the same," Harkin said.

Daryl Kimball, head of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, called the agreement “a non-proliferation disaster."

Geopolitical analysts see this deal as a U.S. move to balance the rise of Chinese influence. In addition to its global economic clout, China’s successful hosting of the Beijing Olympics in August and completion of a spacewalk mission last month have raised its profile in the world.

In the eyes of some countries, including India, China looks set to resume its historical position as a dominant power in Asia, and is thereby seen as a threat or at least a challenge to the present international system. In reality China is still a developing country, lagging far behind developed countries in many fields, including governance and rule of law.

Another target of the U.S.-India deal is Russia. While India has been a nonaligned country, in fact it had a quasi-alliance with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, giving it some leverage against its neighbors China and Pakistan. India fought a border war with China in 1962; in 1947 and 1965 it fought Pakistan over Kashmir, and in 1971 over what is now Bangladesh.

U.S. anxiety over India’s engagement with Russia is not unfounded. Under former President Vladimir Putin Russia has sought to exert greater influence militarily and economically on the global level. Russia is viewed historically as an ambitious, if not aggressive, country. Its recent clashes with Western countries over Georgia’s independence and military cooperation with Venezuela, as well as the two 1,000-megawatt reactors it is building in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, have raised concerns in the United States.

Of course, the nuclear deal will also bring economic benefits, opening up a market worth billions of dollars to U.S. companies able to meet India’s huge energy needs. The deal will give U.S. companies an advantage in the Indian market, where other countries with nuclear technology, such as Russia, France, Japan and even China, are also aiming for a piece of the pie.

U.S. companies are expected to have even greater opportunities as India gradually opens its vast market, in areas ranging from investments in Indian real estate to selling soybean oil and fighter planes.

The deal may also have been conceived as a remedy for the current U.S. financial crisis, even though it was conceived three years ago. In 2006, financial writer Peter D. Shiff published a book, “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse,” in which he warned of a looming period of sizeable tax hikes, loss of retirement benefits and double-digit inflation. He compared the United States to a house of cards – impressive on the outside, but a disaster waiting to happen. He predicted that the country would go from the world's largest creditor to its greatest debtor; that the value of the dollar would decline; and that domestic manufacturing would give way to non-exportable services.

Perhaps U.S. President George W. Bush also saw this coming and viewed the India deal as a precautionary measure?

There is also the democracy factor. The United States regards India as a model of democracy in Asia, at least among the developing countries. Despite its numerous problems – including unemployment, starvation, ethnic conflicts and inefficient governance – the United States still sees India as a natural ally in Asia and a model for other countries to follow because of its democratic system.

Senator Joseph Biden, running mate to Barrack Obama in the U.S. presidential election next month, described the nuclear bill as implicit recognition of India's long-term value to the United States, "as a counterweight to China, as a rising military power, as an energy consumer, as an economic force, as a bulwark against terrorism and extremism, as a cultural beacon throughout Asia and the world."

Whether or not India meets U.S. expectations as a responsible citizen, partner or beacon of democracy, it is still a bold decision for Bush to decide to ignore international regimes and norms by allowing India to flout the NPT. It sets a precedent that other would-be nuclear states may be all too ready to follow.

--

(Dr. Zhang Quanyi is associate professor at Zhejiang Wanli University in Ningbo, China, and a guest researcher at the Center for the Study of Non-traditional Security and Peaceful Development at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou. His research interest revolves around the creation of a world state. He can be contacted at [email protected]. ©Copyright Zhang Quanyi)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Oct 2008 21:47

The White House's Final Folly by Eric Margolis: Huffington Post

After invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, turning the Muslim world against America, alienating our allies, authoring the fiasco in Georgia, and presiding over the meltdown of Wall Street and America's banks, it would seem impossible the Bush administration could produce another epic disaster. But it has.

In its final days in office, the White House has engineered an historic nuclear deal with India that Congress, unaware of the import, approved last week.

President George W. Bush has been pressing for this treaty since 2005. Its passage by Congress is being hailed as a major foreign policy triumph by Republicans. Many Democrats also supported the deal under intense pressure from industry lobbyists.

Far from a triumph, this short-sighted strategic agreement with India could very well come back to haunt America. Many Indians feel the same way: furious debate over the nuclear deal almost brought down the coalition government of India's prime minister Manmohan Singh and barely scraped by India's parliament.

The agreement will now allow the U.S. to sell nuclear fuel, reactors and technology to India, supposedly for `peaceful energy use.' India has been under a U.S.-led nuclear trade embargo since it tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has long complained it was a victim of western `nuclear apartheid' that allowed the great powers weapons of mass destruction but denied them to other nations.

India agreed to open 14 of its civilian reactors to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But its eight nuclear reactors producing plutonium for nuclear weapons are exempt from any inspection under this lopsided agreement.

Like many rapidly developing nations, India suffers chronic shortages of power. It has long lacked enough nuclear fuel to power its 22 reactors, some of which this writer has inspected.

Severe shortages of fuel have held back India's nuclear weapons program, which is estimated at 200 warheads and annual production of more than 286 pounds of enriched, weapon's grade plutonium, according to former high-ranking officer of India's intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing.

President Bush's `foreign policy triumph' means that U.S.-supplied nuclear fuel will now keep India's civilian reactors running, allowing Delhi to divert precious nuclear fuel to its weapons program.

This deal negates thirty years of US efforts to prevent the spread and development of nuclear weapons.

Advanced U.S. nuclear technology will now flow to India, supplementing that already supplied by India's second largest arms supplier, Israel. The gates have also been opened to U.S. arms exporters to sell state of the art military equipment to India, and to major heavy equipment suppliers like General Electric. Some business groups, giddy at the prospect of this commercial cornucopia, have estimated potential sales to India at $175 billion over the next 25 years, but that figure appears a gross exaggeration made to sway Congress.

So Washington has now blessed former pariah India as a legitimate nuclear power state. This radical change in U.S. policy comes at a time when Washington is threatening war against Iran for possibly thinking about nuclear weapons, doing its utmost to get North Korea to disarm, and talking about `taking out' Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. This blatant double standard has further enraged the
Muslim world against America which was already furious over Washington's closing a blind eye to Israel's large nuclear arsenal, much of it built with purloined U.S. technology and materials.

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was developed in response to India's 1974 nuclear tests. A U.S. conventional arms embargo on Pakistan forced it to rely increasingly on nuclear deterrence. India developed nuclear weapons after China tested its first nuclear devices.

Bu underwriting and expanding India's nuclear arsenal, the Bush administration's born-again Cold Warriors were clearly trying to build up India as a counter-weight to China. My book, `War at the Top of the World,' postulated that India and China would clash over their disputed Himalayan border and Burma sometime in the first half of the 21st Century. Bush's nuclear gambit has raised the prospects of such a clash of Asian titans.

Beijing has reacted with quiet fury to the U.S.-India nuclear deal, calling it an example of growing U.S. hostility and a dire threat to China's national security, which it certainly is. A nuclear and conventional arms race between China and India has been under way for years, and is accelerating. Washington is pouring gasoline on these fires.

Instead of playing off India against China, Washington should be striving to create the strategic and diplomatic environment to peacefully accommodate the emergence of these new great powers.

Not only does the U.S.-India nuclear deal undermine nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability, it also raises a serious new strategic threat to the United States.

The Senators and Representatives who voted for this profoundly unwise deal simply had no idea that India is fast-emerging as the world's newest strategic nuclear power - and one whose increasingly long reach will soon threaten the U.S. While fulminating against Iran, which has no nuclear weapons and no long-ranged delivery systems, Washington will now aid India to build nuclear armed inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM's).

For the past decade, India has been quietly developing a series of ICBM's under cover of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). The GSLV-III heavy space launcher, which India has used to put numerous satellites into orbit, has been transformed into its new, three-stage Surya ICBM with a range of 6-7,000 miles. A missile that can launch heavy satellites can also deliver warheads at long range.

Why does India need ICBM's? India's Agni-III medium range nuclear-armed missile can cover nearly all potential enemies, such as China, Iran, and Russia. India's short-ranged Prithivi missiles can cover all of Pakistan.

Over 60% of Indians subsist on less than $2 daily. About 75% lack indoor plumbing. Yet India, one of the world's poorest nations, has embarked on a buildup of hugely expensive strategic arms that has made it the world's third or fourth nuclear weapons power after the U.S., Russia, and Israel.

Since India is most unlikely to war with Europe, Australia, or Latin America, the only other conceivable target for India's long-ranged ICBM's would be the United States. Thanks to President Bush and the powerful pro-India lobby, the US will now help India with the high-speed computers and electronics to make its missiles more accurate, powerful and long-ranged.

India is also rapidly developing a new sea-launched missile with a 450 mile range, `Sagarika.' This nuclear armed weapon will complete India's nuclear triad of air, land, and sea-launched weapons. `Sagarika,' carried on up to five new strategic missile submarines India is building, must also be counted a potential threat to North America.

India's growing fleet of Russian-supplied attack submarines, like the formidable 'Akula' are armed with the world's fastest and deadliest anti-ship missile, 'BrahMos,' a weapon designed to sink aircraft carriers. Besides India, the only nation operating carriers in the Indian Ocean is the United States Navy. Indian strategists claim this ocean as India's `Mare Nostrum.'

India is emerging as a great power and has every right to nuclear self-defense against hostile neighbors China and Pakistan. India is also a stable democracy with a cautious government that is not about to launch nuclear war. But it seems clear, at least to this long-time regional strategist, that one day soon, India's growing power will bump into that of the world's receding hegemony, the U.S. This is most likely, as India expands its power into the oil-rich Gulf and Indian Ocean.

Selling India nuclear fuel and technology that could one day threaten US national security is dangerous and counter-productive. It's also folly driven by short-term financial greed that blinds the deal's proponents to the nation's security.

The first target of India's ICBM's will be Washington. As Marx so rightly observed, the capitalists will sell the rope with which to hang them.

Eric Maro Goli wants to promote India to USA's most terrible fiend status, out to destroy America.

Just like Pakistan, now Pakistan's friends have started committing suicide too with their Bull$hit theories. When nobody takes note of him, he will come up with even more bizarre theories the next time round. All the better. Nobody will ever take this guy seriously any more. It is good, that Pakistan loses its last few friends in USA.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Oct 2008 21:53

Only 3 hours and 14 minutes more before the official close of

attitude on this thread. People should hurry up.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Oct 2008 22:29

Hey, this roundup of

from the Kendalls, Sobolskis, PakiHarkins, Mar-Golas, Sid-Harth Varadarajans and MJAkbars and Seems Musharrafa is all a fabulous resource. Pls don't delete - it will take a lot of time to extract the juicy stuff here for papers.

History in the making. Good stuff!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Oct 2008 22:37

For the past decade, India has been quietly developing a series of ICBM's under cover of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). The GSLV-III heavy space launcher, which India has used to put numerous satellites into orbit, has been transformed into its new, three-stage Surya ICBM with a range of 6-7,000 miles. A missile that can launch heavy satellites can also deliver warheads at long range.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2008 22:48

The Marogoli article is a compilation of half truths and fears that led to the Hyde Act. Very interesting and revaling of the mindset that he represents. The mofo is Canadian and is preaching to US on how to suck an egg!

Whats the veracity of his 286 pounds a year claim? And not its not in tens or hundreds as if he has isnider info! Whys isnt it 786?

N^3 a lot of gems to mine and will be lost if the whines are not documented.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Oct 2008 22:54

Though I don't want to debase this forum to an Indian politics level, but perhaps it may not be a bad idea to mine and record what the Indian politicians too have been saying too. It just so happens, that these tend to change their positions often.

Though not an ideal deal, but MMS has taken a lot of heat on this, from the Left, from the BJP and countless others. It will not be a bad idea to be able to compare the positions of all those gentlemen and ladies in 15 years time and now.

JMT.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Oct 2008 22:56

ramana wrote:The Marogoli article is a compilation of half truths and fears that led to the Hyde Act. Very interesting and revaling of the mindset that he represents. The mofo is Canadian and is preaching to US on how to suck an egg!

Whats the veracity of his 286 pounds a year claim? And not its not in tens or hundreds as if he has isnider info! Whys isnt it 786?

N^3 a lot of gems to mine and will be lost if the whines are not documented.

He worked for CIA and may still do

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Oct 2008 23:01

That's OK if he only works for the CIA. Last time I had a small, shall we say, privilege of illuminating certain

in a deep paper written by one of our Holy Netas on the direction of the Holy Baithak, said Neta sent an email to his huge list declaring that I was an agent of the CIA, KGB, ISI, MOSSAD, MI-6, RAW and maybe the South African and Argentinian secret services too.

And all the time I only worked for the Georgian Mafia... Oops! Did I reveal that?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 Oct 2008 00:09

ramana wrote:Whats the veracity of his 286 pounds a year claim?

He got this from here

"India can make 50 nuclear warheads a year"

In an article in the Indian Defence Review, Mr. Sinha said an estimate showed that "the exempted reactors would be able to produce 130 kg of weapon-grade plutonium per year. "

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 11 Oct 2008 00:36

Eric Margolis' source of wealth has been obliterated from his wikipedia entry as well as in simple google searches. Earlier it used to pop-up everywhere, if you just type his name. Now you need to type in his firms' name along with his. Atleast somebody is taking care of him, since Gen Aziz retired and their inappropriate relationship ended. Good for him.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 11 Oct 2008 01:30

ramana wrote:The Marogoli article is a compilation of half truths and fears that led to the Hyde Act. Very interesting and revaling of the mindset that he represents. The mofo is Canadian and is preaching to US on how to suck an egg!

Whats the veracity of his 286 pounds a year claim? And not its not in tens or hundreds as if he has isnider info! Whys isnt it 786?

N^3 a lot of gems to mine and will be lost if the whines are not documented.

Judge a subject matter expert by having presented no idotic claims/data. This article by the so called expert shows he is no expert but as good as the crap he vomits.

RajeshA wrote:The White House's Final Folly by Eric Margolis: Huffington Post
.... ... The Senators and Representatives who voted for this profoundly unwise deal simply had no idea that India is fast-emerging as the world's newest strategic nuclear power - and one whose increasingly long reach will soon threaten the U.S. While fulminating against Iran, which has no nuclear weapons and no long-ranged delivery systems, Washington will now aid India to build nuclear armed inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM's).

For the past decade, India has been quietly developing a series of ICBM's under cover of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). The GSLV-III heavy space launcher, which India has used to put numerous satellites into orbit, has been transformed into its new, three-stage Surya ICBM with a range of 6-7,000 miles. A missile that can launch heavy satellites can also deliver warheads at long range.

First ISRO's GSLV-3 is still under initial development and has not even made one flight. And here Eric Margolis states as black and white fact that GSLV-3 has put multiple satellites in orbit. Stretching it further by saying it has transformed into a 3 stage missile (again a clear unfounded lie). Then further he talks of a yet non-existing Surya missile that is based on liquid fueled and cryo fueled GSLV-3 space launcher. Can someone please tell him to hire Gen Musharraf as his proxy writer for 400% accurate information and anal-is-is? Gen Musharraf also famous for GUBO service.

Since India is most unlikely to war with Europe, Australia, or Latin America, the only other conceivable target for India's long-ranged ICBM's would be the United States. Thanks to President Bush and the powerful pro-India lobby, the US will now help India with the high-speed computers and electronics to make its missiles more accurate, powerful and long-ranged.

Eric Margolis may well ask by the same token "since India is most unlikely to war with Europe, Australia, or Latin America", by what imagination will India go to war against a friendly country like USA or Canada? Unless of course USA or Canada have design for a overt war with India? Or is it is really his fear (chor ki dadhee main tinka) that US or Canada have been waging a covert war against India all these years (as against countries that have not waged covert war against India like Europe, Australia, or Latin America); the recent ones being Khalistani terrorism, K...... and K..... .

India is also rapidly developing a new sea-launched missile with a 450 mile range, `Sagarika.' This nuclear armed weapon will complete India's nuclear triad of air, land, and sea-launched weapons. `Sagarika,' carried on up to five new strategic missile submarines India is building, must also be counted a potential threat to North America.

Looks like Eric Margolis is convinced that Gwad did not give any rights to heathen Indians. India cant arm itself living in a dangerous neighborhood and growing economy. No weapons it develops against China etc that can hit US sovereign acreage floating in Gulf or Indian ocean are legitimate. Oh well might as well keep those sovereign acreage closer to shore and all will be fine w.r.t. the 450km range mijjile. Why invite rape by walking in dangerous neighborhood being drunk and wearing miniskirt? Especially true for a Canadian who does not need Canadian visa!!

India's growing fleet of Russian-supplied attack submarines, like the formidable 'Akula' are armed with the world's fastest and deadliest anti-ship missile, 'BrahMos,' a weapon designed to sink aircraft carriers. Besides India, the only nation operating carriers in the Indian Ocean is the United States Navy. Indian strategists claim this ocean as India's `Mare Nostrum.'

Am surprised as to why the word "Monroe Doctrine" is so alien to the gospel preacher.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2008 01:50

Just saw the 123 Agreement Signing Ceremony Live on Doordarshan on the Internet. The stream didn't have any sound though.

Ok, with that the official period of

is over. The King is dead. Long live the King.

No more whining about what else should have been included with what formulation and what has not been given to India.

.

It is a new world out there. Let's go and face the challenges with some more confidence in ourselves and in what we can accomplish.

Better speech writers. Please report to duty!