India nuclear news and discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Dec 2008 01:10

India to invest in uranium mines in Russia, Kazakhstan

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Dec 2008 01:17

Nuclear command control system ready

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Dec 2008 05:13

PM led N-Command meeting on Saturday

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Dec 2008 13:10

Gerard wrote:Nuclear command control system ready

This seems to be general motherhood statement with lot of notes of accomplishment.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Dec 2008 19:51

DAE in talks with private cos for nuke JV

The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is in talks with private companies for floating a joint venture with Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL) to manufacture nuclear reactor pressure vessels.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 26 Dec 2008 09:59

A bit old news about AHWR. But I dont think it was posted here.

Development work on 300 MW advanced heavy water reactor at advanced stage

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Dec 2008 18:38

Meghalaya sets terms to allow uranium extraction

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 28 Dec 2008 11:29

Frontline: 'Koodumkulam Forced The US Into The N-Deal'

Days before Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev was to arrive in India on December 4, the country's ambassador to India had a freewheeling chat on the Indo-Russian relationship and whether it's affected by recent Indian closeness to America ...

Pranay Sharma interviews V.I. Trubnikov

Is the love affair between India and Russia over?

You call it a love affair; I'd like to characterize the relationship as a Strategic Partnership. A love affair has its start and its end. But relations between two countries is a long and interactive process. As it is said, there are no permanent friends and no permanent foes in international relations, but only permanent interests. Relations between India and Russia are permanent because their interests are also permanent. Of course, time changes, we come across new friends or new foes. Both Russia and India want to win over new friends, but not at the expense of trusted and old friends.

But the Indo-Russian relationship is no longer heard in the political discourse?

This is the result of the globalization process. It's not something only about India and Russia. Of course, the name of the US is heard every day, every hour. But it's closely connected to practical solutions to practical problems that exist between India and the international community -- and also between India and the US. The nuclear deal was not just between India and the US. It was a deal between India and the international community, between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency, between India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). There's nothing wrong that we don't frequently hear the slogan of 'Hindi-Russi bhai bhai.' It doesn't change the essence of our relationship. The essence is the same: it's difficult and almost impossible to imagine India with some new friends -- but without Russia.

Do the growing Indo-US ties bother Russia?

We are too secure a nation to worry about something that doesn't threaten our national interest. [Arun_S: That is a realist & a diplomatic stance that Indian FM Pranab Mukharjee will never know ] I don't see any threat in the developing Indo-US ties. We have nothing to worry about as long as India's foreign policy remains based on the same principles as before.

But are Indo-US ties growing at the cost of others?

I'm yet to face any encroachment on our ties or an attempt to elbow us out as a supplier of something to India. What's definitely a new phenomenon is the rising competitiveness of the Indian market. Decades earlier, India didn't have too many alternatives except working together with Russia. And Russia worked wholeheartedly with India in building its heavy machinery and its steel industry. The initial stages of the Indian space research was without doubt due to our participation. In the field of military cooperation, India was searching for friends. Only Russia was prepared to build India's military might -- on the basis of government credit, not hard currency that India lacked then. Later, by buying back Indian traditional goods, we also assisted India to get access to international markets. All this became the basis of today's India.

Is it a good thing for Russia that India has so many options today?

It's price and quality that will play an important role in the Indian market. Until now, Russia as a supplier has been enjoying this leading role. Our prices are optimal, and in the military, nuclear and space research fields, this is recognized perfectly well.

India has been looking at sources other than Russia for defence supplies. Will Russia look for other markets -- say, Pakistan?

Even now we have a lot of customers besides India. With India, it's a different story. We have already reached the stage of joint designs, joint production and joint marketing in third countries of military goods and hardware that we have produced together. The best example of this is Brahmos. We are now thinking of Brahmos II. We are also working on the joint production of interceptor fighter aircraft -- fifth generation.

With other countries, our relationship is different. As far as I know, this kind of relationship doesn't exist between India and other countries.

Is India's sensitivity the reason why Russia hasn't really looked upon Pakistan as a market?

This isn't at India's behest. Undoubtedly, we have to keep in mind our strategic cooperation with India. We will also have to keep in mind the long and chequered history of our relations with Pakistan, specifically when our forces were in Afghanistan. But we will have to take into account the internal situation in Pakistan. The Americans are worried about the security of the nuclear devices in Pakistan. We don't want to be in the same shoes. We don't want to worry about how our military hardware is exploited by some extremist forces. In any case, from both the economic and strategic point of view, Pakistan isn't a country of our preference. Also, I don't think Pakistan is keen to have well developed relation with us in this field. Let's not forget their very deep and close military ties with the US.

But what about Indo-Russia economic cooperation?

It's a new situation -- our economy is a market economy and India's is a liberalized market economy. For us, it's a very happy thing that due to their cultures and economic policies, both countries are less negatively influenced by the financial crisis. The US is on the other side--it is the origin of the crisis. It's very positive that India is not directly linked with the dollar but with a basket of currencies. This has minimized the impact of the dollar's tragic fall. India takes care of its internal markets very well. Indian economists, though they are supporters of market economy, say that the very existence of public sector has helped us to battle pressure from outside.

Are you worried that the biggest share of India's nuclear and defence market could go to the US because of its key role in breaking the nuclear apartheid for Delhi?

I don't think the US played a key role in this. It had to play a very active role because they were the architects of these sanctions (against India). It is only natural. But without the cooperation between India and Russia to construct nuclear energy plants in Koodamkulam, it would have taken decades to lift these sanctions. The very existence of our cooperation pushed the US towards the dissolution of the sanctions.

So, Russia was a catalyst?

Russia was the only country that supported India, not only in words but in deeds -- for instance, supplying the Tarapore reactor with fuel. The Americans won't find it easy to enter the Indian market, because it did not construct a single plant in the last 25 years. Also, keep in mind the ratio between quality and price. The price that the Americans will ask for is not going to be very low. Without Russia lobbying with other countries, the NSG's decision would have been a little different.

But you are worried, aren't you?

I do not have worries, I deal with situations. Russia will have its own niche and no one will be able to take that away from us. In other areas, we will complete with France and other countries. We are used to it. Our MiGs and the French Mirage competed successfully. The aircraft constructed in Russia is constructed keeping in mind the pilot's convenience. Those of the west require the pilot to adjust to the aircraft.

Is the Gorshkov deal a done deal?

The deal is under review because between the time the contract was signed and now, there's a new economic situation, price-wise. The ongoing review will provide a positive solution that will be acceptable to both sides. I think the Gorshkov deal will be based on a pucca outlook of what India wants from this aircraft carrier.

Is there a timeframe to complete review?

The reassessment requires time and sober approach towards the decision making process. We might see something unique out of this process or something that will be optimum and which will satisfy the medium range needs of the Indian navy. India has to have a ship of this category. We definitely understand the strategic necessity of India to have such a ship. Though India is now planning on building an indigenous carrier and that is why they have ordered for special type of aircrafts that will suit smaller type of aircraft carrier. Because Gorshkov may be supplied with readymade aircrafts. But India needs smaller aircrafts that can get under the deck.

Will the Indo-Russia N-agreement be signed during President Medvedev's visit?

I'm sure it will be signed.

Will it also cover cooperation on enrichment and reprocessing?

I am not sure. If India needs something, we are willing to look into it. and decide. We are for full-fledged cooperation with India. Unlike other countries, we don't wish to impose any kind of limitation on India. It has an immaculate record on non-proliferation. We have nothing to worry about. Our decision to help Tarapore with nuclear fuel was proof of our preparedness to help India out from any difficult situation.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 28 Dec 2008 11:48

This is also relevant w.r.t the hype energizer bunnies made to sell the nuclear deal to an unwilling nation.

Frontline: The American Pipe-Dream

The US never considered India 'special' as we were made to believe

M.K. Bhadrakumar

Islamabad has drawn the 'red line'. It ably took the 'pressure' from the United States on the Mumbai attacks, and is seen as adopting a 'principled position': India must provide evidence; Pakistan cannot hand over to India any of its nationals; no foreign agencies will be allowed to interrogate Pakistani nationals on its soil.

Alongside, Islamabad launched its own 'initiatives': a joint investigative mechanism and a high-level team to travel to Delhi. Islamabad says Delhi's green signal is awaited. Indeed, it promptly acted on the United Nations Security Council call, which was what India demanded as per US advice.

With its vast experience in dealing with Washington, Islamabad is concluding that US 'pressure' has run its course. Attention will soon turn to the gala ceremony in Washington on January 20 for a historic transfer of power. Unless Pakistan precipitates tension, time is not far off before the international community urges India to engage Pakistan in a spirit of dialogue.

India ponders, 'What now'? It put its strategic partnership with the US to the litmus test and is dismayed at the result. India conducted over 50 military exercises with the US over recent years but they couldn't forestall the act of war on Mumbai or help track down the mentors of the terrorists. India was sold a dream—that Washington was determined to make it a first class world power. The dream lies broken. The carpetbaggers who peddled the dream are nowhere to be seen.

It almost seems grotesque that our strategic gurus promised that the Indo-US nuclear deal was a prerequisite for India to become a 'balancer' in the 21st century international system. Where was it that we went so hopelessly wrong in our triumphalism? Quintessentially, what we're witnessing is that the US never really "dehyphenated" its policies towards India and Pakistan like we believed or were led to believe, or both. The US policy is to maintain stable, predictable, balanced relationships with both India and Pakistan so as to optimally pursue its regional policies as a superpower.

There was no question of the US abandoning Pakistan or elevating India in disregard of Pakistani security concerns. Pakistan is pivotal to the realisation of the US's 'Great Central Asia' strategy. Thus, building up the Pakistani power structure, including the military, is a crucial element of its regional strategy. India can never replace Pakistan in the US geostrategy, in which control of Afghanistan is a priority.

Of course, befriending India would have its benefits as well. Its growing market offers business opportunities and it is also a military power in the Indian Ocean region with the capacity to act as a junior partner. Coopting India is useful for the US strategy towards Russia, China and Iran. Certainly, India could mitigate Israel's regional isolation in West Asia. Hence, India is integral to the US objective to remain embedded in the Asian security scenario.

The US global strategy is to perpetuate its dominance as a world power despite the steady decline in its influence and emergence of new power centres and, to this end, build coalitions from time to time. In the mistaken faith that India's foreign policy can flourish with the single underpinning of strategic partnership with the US, Indian elite neglected the shared concerns and profound commonality of interests India has with Russia and Iran over the Afghan problem. They cut adrift from regional politics and fancied the idea that so long as India harmonised relations with the US, everything else willy-nilly would fall in place—our adversarial relationships with China and Pakistan or the atrophying of our traditional ties with Russia and Iran. Some were myopic enough to actually argue for Indian military deployment in Afghanistan and to play the 'Tibet card' against China.

Simply put, it's time we understand that the open-ended US military occupation of Afghanistan has destabilised Pakistan and, in turn, is drawing the region into the vortex of terrorism. We need to work with Russia and Iran on a regional initiative for an Afghan settlement. It is not in our national security interest to abandon Afghanistan as the playpen of a closely-knit US-UK-Pakistan-Saudi condominium.

The moot point is whether the breakdown of foreign policy is attributable to a failure of leadership, or is it that the Indian elite today is so compromised with the "Washington consensus" that it refuses to see hard realities. The first case is appalling, and the second, frightening. After all, our Pakistan problem is not something new. We sought to keep the tension under check through a judicious mix of factors of advantage. Which, of course, required a broad-based, independent foreign policy and an awareness that there is no such thing as absolute security.

(The writer is a former IFS officer)

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Dec 2008 21:34

NPCIL signs pact with Areva for uranium supply

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Dec 2008 04:34

No N-power plants by pvt firms for now

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Jan 2009 02:39

India, Pak to exchange lists of nuclear installations tomorrow

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Jan 2009 21:29

Indian university to install accelerator

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Jan 2009 19:22

Would someone care to inform the TOIlet of the actual purpose of the Amerikhan NIF?

EDITORIAL COMMENT | A Star Is Born

A recent announcement that scientists at the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, California, will begin attempts early next year to trigger a thermonuclear reaction and ignite a tiny man-made star inside a laboratory sounds promising.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 03 Jan 2009 01:13

Why China Helped Countries Like Pakistan, North Korea Build Nuclear Bombs

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jan 2009 01:48

Kudankulam desalination plant to be operational in a week

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Jan 2009 03:42

Is the world safer or more dangerous with all these powers?
The world is safer for having all the permanent UN Security Council members possess nuclear weapons. I think having North Korea, Pakistan, and India is probably not a good idea. Nuclear proliferation, above all, is not inevitable as many thought at the dawn of the nuclear age.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wor ... l?PageNr=2

Read the comments.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 03 Jan 2009 05:04

sanjaykumar wrote:Is the world safer or more dangerous with all these powers?
The world is safer for having all the permanent UN Security Council members possess nuclear weapons. I think having North Korea, Pakistan, and India is probably not a good idea. Nuclear proliferation, above all, is not inevitable as many thought at the dawn of the nuclear age.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wor ... l?PageNr=2

Read the comments.

Bloody riduculous. On the one hand he is saying China proliferated and on the other hand he says it is good that P5 has Nukes. And he includes India into Pak and NK club.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 03 Jan 2009 05:11

All this is well understood in certain circles. The poor Colonel is only speaking about what he thinks*, clearly shows the old school SD mentality. This has changed now when it comes to the decision makers.

wasu · Post by **wasu** » 03 Jan 2009 10:04

Haven't seen this news anywhere else yet..

China's State Nuclear Power Technology nets India contracts

http://www.chinaknowledge.com/Newswires ... wsID=20176

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 07 Jan 2009 04:14

BRF members in Delhi try and attend a discussion on “The Indo- US Civil Nuclear Deal: What does it mean to India” at Magnolia, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on 7th January, 2009, 7.30pm.

Tentative Programme

1930 hrs Welcome Address and Introduction by Maroof Raza

1940 hrs to 2030 Speakers:

Mr G Parthasarthy ( former diplomat);

Dr Manoj Joshi (journalist) and

Siddharth Varadarajan (journalist)

Followed by Questions & Answers

2035 Special Address by Shri Jaswant Singh, Former Minister of External Affairs

2045hrs Vote of Thanks

2100hrs Dinner at Magnolia

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 08 Jan 2009 00:37

wasu wrote:Haven't seen this news anywhere else yet..

China's State Nuclear Power Technology nets India contracts

http://www.chinaknowledge.com/Newswires ... wsID=20176

Well the Chinese ARE a secretive bunch. I remember them trying sign a deal just after US initiated the 123 with India. Here it is..

If India goes for a deal with the Chinks, it would be a slap in the face of US. India would never risk the relationship with US for a "Chinese Connection"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jan 2009 00:43

X-posted....
This one dates back decades. But interesting account on Paki-US-China-India Political relationships and diplomacy.

The May Mystery
How China and US aided Pakistan’s nuclear programme
K Subrahmanyam

On May 20-21, 1990, Robert Gates, then US deputy national security adviser and his colleagues came to Delhi after a brief stay in Pakistan. Volumes have been written on the 1990 crisis between Pakistan and India that was allegedly defused by the timely intervention of the US. An article ‘On the nuclear edge’ in the ‘New Yorker’ magazine of March 29, 1993 by Seymour Hersh — in which he quoted CIA sources — attracted worldwide attention. According to the versions put out at that time, Pakistan made preparations for a possible nuclear strike against India. US-supplied F-16 aircraft were readied for the purpose. In such circumstances, US president George Bush Sr was reported to have directed Gates who was then in Moscow to fly to Islamabad and Delhi to mediate in this crisis. Though Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was out of Islamabad touring West Asia it was considered absolutely necessary for a US delegation to rush to Islamabad to talk to General Aslam Beg and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.
According to accounts given by Robert Oakley, then US ambassador to Pakistan who accompanied Gates, the US warned Islamabad about the nuclear risks. It was alleged that it was made clear to the Pakistanis that India had a superior retaliatory capability. After such a stern warning to the Pakistani military, the Gates mission arrived in Delhi and met Prime Minister V P Singh and other senior officials. While the US accounts talked about their successful mediation, Indian officials who were then in charge deny that the Gates mission ever raised the nuclear issue during its Delhi visit.
There were also US accounts of perceived Indian military preparations having triggered off the crisis. But in a seminar in the Stimson Centre, then US ambassador, William Clark, made it clear that the Indian Army authorities had permitted the US defence attache to tour the border areas extensively and it was obvious that the Indian Army was not deployed for any impending operation. Then a new explanation was put forward that while the Gates mission did not defuse an ongoing crisis it helped to avert some undefined future crisis.
The solution to the mystery of the Gates mission is now provided by the disclosure of former US air force secretary and veteran of Livermore Weapons Laboratory, Thomas Reed, and Danny Stillman, former director of intelligence of Los Alamos Laboratory in the forthcoming book, ‘The Nuclear Express: A political history of the bomb and its proliferation’ that a nuclear weapon test was conducted for Pakistan by China on the Lop Nor test site on May 26, 1990, just a few days after Gates undertook his journey to Pakistan.
In October 1990, President Bush denied certification under the Pressler Amendment to Pakistan and suspended all aid. The Pressler Amendment enabled Pakistan to receive aid from the US as long as the US president was able to certify that Pakistan did not have a nuclear explosive device. Though Pakistan had assembled a bomb by 1987 US presidents continued their certification in 1987, 1988 and 1989. It is now clear the test of May 26, 1990 made it impossible for the US president to continue the charade of the Pressler certification.
Reed and Stillman also discuss the lead time required for preparation of a nuclear test. Preparations for the May 26 test should have begun by early May. That presumably led to Gates’s trip to Pakistan. The visit to India and the story of an Indo-Pakistan crisis were obviously a cover-up to shield the Chinese nuclear test on Pakistan’s behalf.
The Reed disclosure should dispel the mistaken impressions held by some Indians that the Indian nuclear test in May 1998 justified Pakistan going nuclear openly and that robbed India of the advantage of its conventional superiority because mutual nuclear deterrence got established. In fact, Pakistan, by May 1998, not only had nuclear weapons of Chinese design but had already tested in China. If India had not tested in 1998, Delhi would have faced the Kargil crisis with an aggressive Pakistan, confident of possessing tested nuclear weapons while India had not yet conducted a specifically designed weapons test.
While this disclosure would educate Indians on the politics of nuclear proliferation and the policies of the US and China, it would also help us to distinguish the nuances in the policies of the two countries. The US looked away as Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons with Chinese help. The US nuclear ayatollahs were guilty of double standards when they were preaching to India to halt, roll back and eliminate nuclear weapon capability. But the US did not hurt Indian security to the extent the Chinese did.
Since China carried out the nuclear test for Pakistan in May 1990 when the Cold War was coming to an end it was an unalloyed anti-Indian move, unrelated to the Cold War. The US, under the George W Bush administration has come round to changing its policy vis-a-vis India. There is no evidence that China has chosen to change its containment strategy vis-a-vis India in supporting and arming a jihadist Pakistan. The Reed disclosure also teaches us not to accept the US academic and diplomatic versions at face value in the immediate aftermath of events.

Quite damning the WKK gang. Especially Notwar Singh!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jan 2009 01:22

On more reflection it also shows the Gates visit was spun to US media to jsutify invoking Pressler amendment. The real deal was the information of the TSP test in China and the story put out was that US was exericsing its national laws. I think this was to forestall Indian follow-on test in case the news was public. Most likely they told the GOI at that time to keep it quiet or no IMF loans. And they did till the NDA came to power. And shows the duplicity when they pressured Rao not to test knowing the Pakis already had the bomb. They really out did the British who had the sobriquet "Perfidious Albion!"

One thing that bothered me in the 90s was why PRC was helping setup missile plants when there is no overt info of TSP weaponisation. SO what really was happeneing was the whole range of startegic arms were being transferred by PRC to TSP and US was looking on. And recall Clinton and the ring magnets wiaver?

Wonder what Robert Einhorn has to say? he was lying to OCOngress all the Clinton years!

Any outsider would think the whole US program is to prevent India from exercising its national security objectives while allowing all others to exercise theirs at India's cost.

I am sorry but MMS and Indian elite got taken for a ride with the Nuke deal. Very useful idiots in the real sense.

Useful Idiots= Commie speak for fools who do the Commies bidding without being told.

This might become an election issue soon.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jan 2009 01:25

US joins rush to supply nuclear equipment to India

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 08 Jan 2009 05:23

ramana wrote:X-posted....
This one dates back decades. But interesting account on Paki-US-China-India Political relationships and diplomacy.

The May Mystery
How China and US aided Pakistan’s nuclear programme
K Subrahmanyam

On May 20-21, 1990, Robert Gates, then US deputy national security adviser and his colleagues came to Delhi after a brief stay in Pakistan. Volumes have been written on the 1990 crisis between Pakistan and India that was allegedly defused by the timely intervention of the US. An article ‘On the nuclear edge’ in the ‘New Yorker’ magazine of March 29, 1993 by Seymour Hersh — in which he quoted CIA sources — attracted worldwide attention. According to the versions put out at that time, Pakistan made preparations for a possible nuclear strike against India. US-supplied F-16 aircraft were readied for the purpose. In such circumstances, US president George Bush Sr was reported to have directed Gates who was then in Moscow to fly to Islamabad and Delhi to mediate in this crisis. Though Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was out of Islamabad touring West Asia it was considered absolutely necessary for a US delegation to rush to Islamabad to talk to General Aslam Beg and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.
According to accounts given by Robert Oakley, then US ambassador to Pakistan who accompanied Gates, the US warned Islamabad about the nuclear risks. It was alleged that it was made clear to the Pakistanis that India had a superior retaliatory capability. After such a stern warning to the Pakistani military, the Gates mission arrived in Delhi and met Prime Minister V P Singh and other senior officials. While the US accounts talked about their successful mediation, Indian officials who were then in charge deny that the Gates mission ever raised the nuclear issue during its Delhi visit.
There were also US accounts of perceived Indian military preparations having triggered off the crisis. But in a seminar in the Stimson Centre, then US ambassador, William Clark, made it clear that the Indian Army authorities had permitted the US defence attache to tour the border areas extensively and it was obvious that the Indian Army was not deployed for any impending operation. Then a new explanation was put forward that while the Gates mission did not defuse an ongoing crisis it helped to avert some undefined future crisis.
The solution to the mystery of the Gates mission is now provided by the disclosure of former US air force secretary and veteran of Livermore Weapons Laboratory, Thomas Reed, and Danny Stillman, former director of intelligence of Los Alamos Laboratory in the forthcoming book, ‘The Nuclear Express: A political history of the bomb and its proliferation’ that a nuclear weapon test was conducted for Pakistan by China on the Lop Nor test site on May 26, 1990, just a few days after Gates undertook his journey to Pakistan.
In October 1990, President Bush denied certification under the Pressler Amendment to Pakistan and suspended all aid. The Pressler Amendment enabled Pakistan to receive aid from the US as long as the US president was able to certify that Pakistan did not have a nuclear explosive device. Though Pakistan had assembled a bomb by 1987 US presidents continued their certification in 1987, 1988 and 1989. It is now clear the test of May 26, 1990 made it impossible for the US president to continue the charade of the Pressler certification.
Reed and Stillman also discuss the lead time required for preparation of a nuclear test. Preparations for the May 26 test should have begun by early May. That presumably led to Gates’s trip to Pakistan. The visit to India and the story of an Indo-Pakistan crisis were obviously a cover-up to shield the Chinese nuclear test on Pakistan’s behalf.
The Reed disclosure should dispel the mistaken impressions held by some Indians that the Indian nuclear test in May 1998 justified Pakistan going nuclear openly and that robbed India of the advantage of its conventional superiority because mutual nuclear deterrence got established. In fact, Pakistan, by May 1998, not only had nuclear weapons of Chinese design but had already tested in China. If India had not tested in 1998, Delhi would have faced the Kargil crisis with an aggressive Pakistan, confident of possessing tested nuclear weapons while India had not yet conducted a specifically designed weapons test.
While this disclosure would educate Indians on the politics of nuclear proliferation and the policies of the US and China, it would also help us to distinguish the nuances in the policies of the two countries. The US looked away as Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons with Chinese help. The US nuclear ayatollahs were guilty of double standards when they were preaching to India to halt, roll back and eliminate nuclear weapon capability. But the US did not hurt Indian security to the extent the Chinese did.
Since China carried out the nuclear test for Pakistan in May 1990 when the Cold War was coming to an end it was an unalloyed anti-Indian move, unrelated to the Cold War. The US, under the George W Bush administration has come round to changing its policy vis-a-vis India. There is no evidence that China has chosen to change its containment strategy vis-a-vis India in supporting and arming a jihadist Pakistan. The Reed disclosure also teaches us not to accept the US academic and diplomatic versions at face value in the immediate aftermath of events.

Quite damning the WKK gang. Especially Notwar Singh!

Correct me if I am wrong this article went to print today viz: 7 Jan 2009, although you initial comments can be misunderstood tto mean this article was written decades ago. Just that Shri K Subrahmanyam is making clear to Indian WKK citizens how grand India had been had while Indian were eating "Kulfee" at the nukkad. And double jeopardy thrown at Indian interests by teh WKK, Commies and of course teh western press and Psy-ops.

Shame on Indian for being naive and pure-fools.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 08 Jan 2009 05:40

Gerard wrote:US joins rush to supply nuclear equipment to India

This is re-education camp on grand scale. Talk of molding the mind of lay readers.

Largest ever US trade mission travels to Delhi and Mumbai as nuclear supply embargo on the country is lifted
Rhys Blakely in Mumbai

The United States will enter the fray against France and Russia this week in the scramble to supply nuclear power equipment worth an estimated $150 billion to India.

The US is sending what is thought to be its largest ever trade mission to Delhi and Mumbai, including representatives of 30 companies that deal with civilian nuclear projects, to pitch for contracts related to India's atomic energy industry. The move comes after India's status as a nuclear pariah, with which other nations were not allowed to trade nuclear fuel and equipment, was controversially ended last year.

The state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCI) is understood to have begun preliminary discussions with General Electric and Westinghouse, the US companies, over the supply of atomic hardware. Others, including Bechtel Nuclear, The Shaw Group and Babcock & Wilcox, will be in India to meet senior government officials.

In the background will be India's deepening defence ties with the US.

This week India signed a USD2.1 billion deal to buy eight long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft from Boeing, one of the companies that had lobbied hardest in Washington for India to be allowed to become part of the international nuclear club. The deal with Boeing marked India's largest ever acquisition of military equipment from the US, its former Cold War enemy. {Arun_S: Wonder fool....}

Boeing is also vying with five other companies – including Dassault of France and Russia's Mikoyan Design Bureau to supply 126 fighter jets in a $10 billion deal to modernise India's ageing air force.

Players from the same three countries are battling to profit from India's entry into the nuclear power market. The NPCI recently held talks with AtomStroyExport, Russia's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, over the provision of reactors. The Indian body has also approached Areva, the French manufacturer, over the possible supply of third-generation 1,600 MW European Pressurised Reactors. Areva already has a deal in place to supply India's regional rival China to supply the same hardware.

The rush to do business with India follows the overturn of a three-decade ban on supplying the country with atomic fuel and equipment in September. The process was spearheaded by the US and handed President Bush with what may prove his most significant foreign policy victory while in office.

The ban was imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of 45 nations that legally supply nuclear fuel and technology, which was created after India shocked the world by testing its first atomic device in 1974. {Arun_S: Wonder fool.... in what is Haraam and what is not } The NSG had prevented Delhi from importing the nuclear material it says it needs to help to meet rocketing domestic energy demand until last September.

Analysts said that America's willingness to supply India with nuclear hardware underscored Washington's ambition to champion India as an Asian counterweight to China. India argued that access to nuclear power was essential to fuel its economic rise.

Much of India is regularly blighted by power cuts and with nuclear fuel in short supply, the country's existing nuclear power plants are estimated to be running at only about half of their capacity of about 4,000 megawatts. Deals with foreign firms are expected to double nuclear power's share in India's electricity supply to up to 7 per cent within 20 years as at least 18 new reactors are built. The US-India Business Council estimates that nuclear trade with India could be worth up to US$ 150 billion over the next 30 years. {Arun_S: Wonder fool.... That is just the trade that US hopes to win, the total cost Anil Kakodkar neatly hid away from his famous Power Point Presentation. The secret of how much the imported fuel will cost as against the rector cost is a mind boggling (as I computed ~US$ 300 billion). It was slick sales pitch of cheap HP Inkjet printers and to run those printers every year you need to spend 3X the printer cost. Indians are wonderful/Wonder fools .... . }

Critics condemned Mr Bush's unprecedented willingness to supply India with civilian nuclear technology despite the country's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. India tested nuclear weapons as recently as 1998 and has refused to rule out doing so again.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 09 Jan 2009 19:36

India to sign global pact on nuclear liabilities soon: Shyam Saran.

New Delhi, Jan. 8 India has initiated the process of signing an international convention on nuclear liability issues and the matter would be taken up by the Cabinet for a decision shortly.

“The issue of signing an international pact on nuclear liabilities is under consideration… The matter is to be taken up by the Cabinet shortly,” Mr Shyam Saran, Special Envoy to the Prime Minister, said at an Indo-US Economic summit here on Thursday. He, however, did not elaborate on the issue and did not give a time frame for the proposed move.

International nuclear firms, led by US companies, have been lobbying hard for India to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Convention of Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).

The convention, among its provisions, places the onus of compensation in case of nuclear damage on the ‘Installation State’ (where the nuclear facilities are located), in this case India.

The CSC, seen as a step forward in the international nuclear liability regime embodied in the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage of 1963 and the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of 1960, mandates the ‘Installation State’ to give 300 million SDRs (Special Drawing Rights, the unit of account defined by the International Monetary Fund) or a higher amount as compensation.

It also holds the operator of a nuclear installation liable for damage if adequately proven.

Speaking at the event, Mr Saran also said the Government hopes to scale up nuclear power capacity to 60,000 MW by the year 2030.

Private participation

On the issue of amending Atomic Energy Act of 1962 to enable private participation in the civil nuclear programme, Mr Saran said: “The Government doesn’t have a closed mind on private participation in the nuclear programme. But the Government is cautious about it, as it is a sensitive subject. It would take a while before allowing private participation.”
Mr Saran said that in the intervening period, the private sector can be successfully involved in the manufacture of plants and components that go into the nuclear power generation.

In this regard, there could be several works that can be bagged from state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) for component manufacturing. “Once the private players gain experience in the nuclear field, the Government may consider allowing them to establish nuclear plants of their own,” he added.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 09 Jan 2009 20:28

US nuclear trade team to visit India next week

A US trade mission, which will include representatives of General Electric, Westinghouse and USEC Inc, will visit India this week to hold talks with the government on how to leverage spinoffs from the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement, Shyam Saran, the prime minister’s special envoy on the Indo-US nuclear deal, has said.........

US nuclear trade team to visit India next week

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 11 Jan 2009 23:15

Nuclear power's core of support gains strength

After a decadeslong winter of discontent, a confluence of favorable events during the last 10 years has provided a spark to America's nuclear industry...

...the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the last two years has received 17 applications for 26 new nuclear reactors, most of them at existing facilities. And during this year something will likely happen that hasn’t in three decades: A U.S. power provider is expected to receive a license to begin clearing land for a new reactor.
...
Technological solutions

A recognition of these policy hurdles has led to numerous technological approaches that circumvent some of the existing problems with nuclear energy and that one day may lead to a wider adoption of fission power.
The broadest is an international effort by more than a dozen nations, including the U.S., to develop a new generation of reactors, called the Generation IV International Forum.

One goal of this new reactor design is to use nearly all of the available natural uranium in a reaction. Most of today’s reactors can use only a small fraction of the uranium fuel in nuclear reactions, typically less than 1 percent. Using a larger fraction and developing reprocessing techniques would greatly extend the lifetime of the world’s supply of uranium and significantly cut waste.

Those involved in the initiative hope to deliver a design for commercial construction by 2030.

A second technological approach is to develop reactors that use thorium, a radioactive element that can be transformed into a uranium-based fuel. The reason for the interest in thorium is simple: There are enough thorium reserves to power the world for centuries.

The United States has generally not supported research of thorium, because it transforms into uranium-233, which has the potential to be used for weapons. However, some countries with abundant thorium reserves but low amounts of uranium, such as India, have pushed the technology forward.
Now, the United States’ position on thorium may be softening. In October, Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Harry Reid, D-Nev., sponsored legislation that would provide $250 million over five years to spur the development of thorium reactors.

“All I can do is put forward a technically feasible way to create all of the energy this planet needs for the next thousand years,” said Peter McIntyre, a Texas A&M physicist who has worked on thorium reactors. “To move forward, it’s up to the government to change its policy toward thorium power.”

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jan 2009 05:43

India to ink nuclear deal with Kazakhstan by month-end

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jan 2009 05:44

AEC wants 10-year tax rebate for nuclear power plants beyond 2010

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 14 Jan 2009 05:27

Vipul wrote: International nuclear firms, led by US companies, have been lobbying hard for India to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Convention of Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).

What exactly does this mean exactly? We are to pay if have an accident (or) if we let technology/fuel get stolen etc?

Vipul wrote:It also holds the operator of a nuclear installation liable for damage if adequately proven.

isn't this loosely worded?

What is the exchange rate between SDR and INR (rupees)?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2009 11:35

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... vt/410625/ Clinton has said the incoming administration would seek Congressional ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and revive negotiation on a Fissile Material Cut off Treaty (FMCT), both of which have been opposed by India.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jan 2009 03:22

India requires Rs.1.5 lakh crore for meeting nuclear power targets

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 16 Jan 2009 17:40

L&T to partner Toshiba unit for nuclear power

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 16 Jan 2009 18:59

I would say procastinate on the US deals until it becomes clear what Obama intends to do...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2009 23:02

That national recognition to Sri SK..Sikka could be acknowledgement that issues have been settled with his work.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 17 Jan 2009 00:07

Gerard wrote:India requires Rs.1.5 lakh crore for meeting nuclear power targets

Noises are getting made for allowing entry of power sector. Is that is the reason Samajwadi party supported UPA in voting. (Samajwadi party gets lot of money from Mr. Anil Ambani).

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 17 Jan 2009 00:25

Aussie PM to visit India, uranium high on agenda