India Nuclear News And Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2009 01:16

Sanku,

Thanks. Will respond in a while.

BUT, I have to wonder why these people could not be so clear - or close to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Dec 2009 01:27

Oh! They are clear enough - for those in the know.

The mystery continues for the jingo junta meanwhile. Something we need to understand here.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2009 04:22

Oh! They are clear enough - for those in the know.

The mystery continues for the jingo junta meanwhile. Something we need to understand here.

(apologies for the use an emoticon .................)

A novice like me got into this topic and found enough on the net to be able to debate on it and have no fear of what happens IF the GoI takes a certain path. And, we have these scicoms that fear it? Laughable.

Perhaps instead of watching cartoons one should use google to check out how many Indians are on various panels and what they are doing (for OR against one's position).

IMVVVHO, it is very sad to see so many respectable scientists have signed off on that article. It would have been far more useful if they had gone and participated in some international forum/s even if they did not make any impact.

What is the fear WRT CTBT and/or FMCT when, today, there is a far more convergence towards the Indian position than there has ever been? (My feel is that people in general are not keeping up with advancements in these areas and basing what they say on old news.)

On second strike capabilities: we have been through this before. I agree India needs a good second strike capability, BUT no one has explained why when India has deterrence. I am still looking for a crystal clear answer on why would Indian deterrence fail. Still waiting.

On op of doctrine. What leads one to believe it is not in place (outside of Santhanam please). Is every component of it kaput? Is there nothing, absolutely nothing in place? Or is there something in place that is not reliable, including mucked up politicians and heads of the armed forces? (Forget AKs, RCs, etc, assume they are all nuts.)

I see no need to fear anything as we post. Just like Pakistan China too is walking the same path - they BOTH will be a greater threat to other before they are a major threat to India. It does not mean that India go play cricket and watch Bollywood movies, but it does mean that much less work to be done IF India plays her other cards properly. In fact even if India were to misplay her cards I would not fear that much, for, there is plenty of cushion this time around.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 22 Dec 2009 04:37

shiv wrote:
I think the GoI would have had a problem if Santhanam had not botched it badly. He has just shot himself in the foot and he is actually the naked emperor because not one of his 500 plus claimed supporters has actually backed up his statements about lies and deception. Everyone who has written anything has hidden behind the Santhanam burqa (Santhanam has said this, Santhnam has said that). Even PKI did a downhill ski on his own statements and is now saying "..according to Santhanam.."

shiv wrote: So who actually has any doubts other than the same old doubters? Who has Santhanam won over by his sem-antics? If he thought he was making a great patriotic appeal to the nation via the press he has done no more than make a little blip that is being systematically covered over. He has achieved nothing other than creating bad blood and doubts while whittling away at his own credibility. How does that impact on deterrence? Or on the arsenal?

Agreed that KS did a sloppy job of making his case. The impact could have been bigger with more planning/co-ordination.

But the aam-aadmi, while not technically savvy, has common sense. For all his bumbling, KS has communicated to Indians the essence of what he wanted to convey - i.e. all is not right when it comes to our TN capabilities. The media has also given him enough space. If the GOI had any plans of signing CTBT, he has pretty much scuttled it IMO. As regards who he has "converted", I can point to myself as an example. I had assumed that the TN in Pok-2 had worked - mainly because I didnt bother to check much details. So I just took the GOI word for it. Post-KS, whatever digging I did has made me lean towards the KS side of the story. There may be more like me.

So, even now I believe that the ball is the GOI court to come out with more data disclosure to refute KS. I just hope that he and the media keep up the pressure.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Dec 2009 05:30

NRao wrote: On second strike capabilities: we have been through this before. 1. I agree India needs a good second strike capability, BUT no one has explained why when India has deterrence. 2. I am still looking for a crystal clear answer on why would Indian deterrence fail. Still waiting.

I think you would want to revisit the above lines.

Fwiw for

1. Second strike capability is what lends credibility to India's MCD posture , without former there is no deterrence as such .

2. Technically speaking no one can answer such a hypothetical question in terms of Yes/No , in this case again keeping semantics in mind one cannot definitely say whether or not India's MCD will work as desired ; the point is whether the MCD is based on an arsenal which is tested and proved beyond doubts (at least in the minds of the nuclear fraternity and the end user i.e. the services) .

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Dec 2009 06:26

Prem Kumar wrote:So, even now I believe that the ball is the GOI court to come out with more data disclosure to refute KS. I just hope that he and the media keep up the pressure.

I feel there is no need to split hairs on what happened wrt the TN or S1. 10 years have gone by since that day.
The question that should be bothering everyone is, 'does India have a verified TN deployed today' ? Even our armed forces are saying they have doubts over what they have been given. Surely N weapons research has gone forward.

All debating that we do, gets stuck because India can't test. If India could do so, a refined TN will evolve, MCD will be real and visible.

There were three monkeys riding India's back. One monkey jumped off with the 123 aggreement with india able to trade with the NSG.
There are two monkeys still riding India's back. The second monkey is the lack of TN + N tech + N sub combo, which India is close to achieving - but for a lack of N testing.
The third monkey is the Security council seat denial. IMHO the path to that is making that second monkey jump off.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Dec 2009 06:29

NRao wrote:
Oh! They are clear enough - for those in the know.

The mystery continues for the jingo junta meanwhile. Something we need to understand here.
(apologies for the use an emoticon .................)

A novice like me got into this topic and found enough on the net to be able to debate on it and have no fear of what happens IF the GoI takes a certain path. And, we have these scicoms that fear it? Laughable.

NRao, are you being pointedly sarcastic? If you are this would be the second time in response to one of my posts.
Could you rephrase your post please, it could be more lucid and more understandable.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Dec 2009 06:54

Prem Kumar wrote: So, even now I believe that the ball is the GOI court to come out with more data disclosure to refute KS. I just hope that he and the media keep up the pressure.

This is your prerogative - but I put it to you that you are going to be in for a disappointment. The GoI will never be able to refute Santhanam without doing more tests and the GoI will not do more tests even if it does not sign the CTBT. That much was clear before Santhanam had his rant and it remains exactly that way post rant.

This is not aimed at you personally but is a general statement. I am both tickled and fascinated by the desire that many people have that seems to say "Unless GoI can refute Santhnam's claims the TN has failed". To me this statement suggests a hidden desire that the GoI can magically refute Santhanam's claims by revealing more data. Clearly the GoI is unable to provide that extra proof and that is Santhanam's only strong point. This should be perfectly clear to anyone who has read everything that ha appeared on the issue. Some reading of technical issues is also esential.

The conclusions are easy to reach and can be reached without Santhanam's "revelations". India's "TN device" has been tested only once. Whatever it's degree of success or failure, nobody can guarantee 100% success of all future TN bombs (if any) from such a small amount of data. If the GoI is wrong in claiming that one test is enough, Santhanam is equally wrong in imagining that two more are enough, or by calling RC a liar and describing Kalam as someone who knows nothing about nuclear testing the GoI will suddenly do a U-turn and start testing.

I have been pointing these things out since the beginning of this tamasha
1) Even if fully successful a single 45kt TN test means little in terms of making a reliable deliverable bomb
2) GoI will not start testing again and will adhere to CTBT with or without a signature.
3) What we have tested we have tested, that is all. We have to make do with whatever data we have just as we have to make do with all the incompetent bums who read that data and similar incompetent bums who dispute that data.
4) If there is any deterrent, none of the above 3 points will make it stronger or weaker because all of them have pre-dated Santhanam's rant and continue to be true after Santhnam's rant.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Dec 2009 07:09

On the issue of testing, and the "self imposed moratorium" there are indications that India has promised something. Consider this:
1. During the 123 talks, MMS taunted the BJP that 'you should not have agreed to the Unilateral moratorium'. Now that you have done so, the current GoI is bound to follow it. That statement did seem odd, because the BJP clammed up after that.

2. Again during the 123, there was this statement by Condolizza Rice that India has promised to / agreed to not test, in return for technology.

3. The K Santhanam debate is now slowly moving to one of testing again / freedom to test again, rather than failure of S1. They are already talking of not giving up that right, and second rung power status.

What do you all think?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Dec 2009 07:52

Uranium demand to go up ten fold

By 2020 the public sector undertaking would require 8,000 tonnes from 800 tonnes annually, Mr J.K. Ghai, Director (Finance), NPCIL, said.

Addressing the media here today, Mr Ghai said NPCIL was considering picking up stake in uranium mining companies overseas. It had received positive feelers from South Africa and Namibia.

The uranium would primarily be used in domestic reactors but there was an option of using it in the imported reactors.

When foreign vendors sell reactors they also guarantee fuel for the reactor's lifetime, but NPCIL can also opt for fuel from other sources, he said.

“We would not be involved in the actual uranium mining operation but would like to have a say in the running of the company. The funding for the mines would be provided by the Centre,” Mr Ghai said.

NPCIL is also looking at producing electricity from solar and wind power. It has established a small wind farm of 10 MW near Koodankulam nuclear facility in Tamil Nadu.

Given the good rate of return on investment in wind power, NPCIL is considering adding another 40 MW wind capacity at the site, he said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Dec 2009 08:55

Gagan wrote: 3. The K Santhanam debate is now slowly moving to one of testing again / freedom to test again, rather than failure of S1. They are already talking of not giving up that right, and second rung power status.

What do you all think?

"Slowly moving" you say?

Fine. I suspect it could have moved a little faster to this level if Santhanam had an iota of the good sense required to not botch all these great and patriotic idealistic aims by saying "RC is a liar", "Kalam did not know which way to turn". Surely these statements do not seem to be the best way to move the nation towards testing and not signing CTBT. Is it any surprise that things are only "moving slowly" as Santhanam's 500 worthy supporters like Dr Valluri of LCA fame take desperate rear guard actions to save their faces and pretend that a whole lot of nasty personal insinuations with little credible new data are actually being made to save the country and make India test again? What clearly sounds like a turf war of personal jealousies to me is now being bandied about as a great and patriotic move This would have been hilarious if this bunch of media squabblers were not our so called "top" scientists.

That is the most incompetent way of furthering the cause as far as I can tell. This tamasha is a case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Better late than never indeed. No more horses can escape after your last horse has gone. It's got to be the most shoddy and worthless way for one group to claim that only they know what is good for the country. The caliber of Indian science is frightening. Maybe that is what constitutes deterrence. If the Chinese take over all these people will become Chinese and China is finished.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 22 Dec 2009 09:02

SSridhar wrote:Uranium demand to go up ten fold
. . .
Addressing the media here today, Mr Ghai said NPCIL was considering picking up stake in uranium mining companies overseas. It had received positive feelers from South Africa and Namibia.

The uranium would primarily be used in domestic reactors but there was an option of using it in the imported reactors.

. . .

Can the following please be clarified?

India "picks up a stake in uranium mining overseas", would essentially mean that India can take out of that country any profits made by the uranium mining operations. Would it automatically also mean that India can export out of that country the mined (or mined and processed) Uranium ore / yellow cake? Export of the product of a venture might be treated differently from the "export" of profits (in currency) earned. Export of the U (seems to be Nat U in this case) from that country would still be subject to that country's policies which could change from time to time (particularly where India is concerned).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2009 10:00

1. Second strike capability is what lends credibility to India's MCD posture , without former there is no deterrence as such .

Fine. I have no problem with that.

However, I have posted why I think (know) what is required to "deter".

What I am after is what people think India needs to deter China (as an example). AND, why they think that a way. (Please do not come back with China has some MT nukes.)

2. Technically speaking no one can answer such a hypothetical question in terms of Yes/No , in this case again keeping semantics in mind one cannot definitely say whether or not India's MCD will work as desired ; the point is whether the MCD is based on an arsenal which is tested and proved beyond doubts (at least in the minds of the nuclear fraternity and the end user i.e. the services) .

Precisely. "Deterrence" is an art to a very great extent, fluid with time, changing with politics and economics, etc. That someone is concerned is OK, that someone is paranoid is also OK, nothing wrong with that. BUT, someone who is cool and calm is also OK, so is someone who is not concerned (because they have it figured out - as much as anyone else has it figured out).

On tested or not cannot count, for part of "deterrence" could be to fake it. Why not? (Which is why I think IF the TN, etc are duds, then more power to those Indian Scicoms who "faked" it and got so much mileage out of pretty much nothing. Is there a better ROI out thee?)

In short (sorry for that bhashan) for me the "Santhanam" (sorry for the inclusion of the name - nothing personal) side IMHO needs to provide a LOT more info that it was a dud. I really do not need TN to deter and India as far as I can tell has nukes to 200 Kt.

On India should provide info - nonsense. Just google and let me know when India provided ANY info AND which country around India provided ANY info. None have. Why should India provide it? The more mileage India gets out of this confusing state the better (not for BR I know).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2009 10:08

Gagan wrote: NRao, are you being pointedly sarcastic? If you are this would be the second time in response to one of my posts.
Could you rephrase your post please, it could be more lucid and more understandable.

No sarcasm Sir.

I am very surprised that CTBT and FMCT thinking has moved and we are still on the older compositions of it.

Again, why should we fear FMCT or CTBT?

I am not asking for agreement. I am asking for understanding. And that cannot come unless people keep up with the latest (as far as possible).

As far as I am concerned I cannot see India signing anything until India gets her deal. And I see convergence (of other nations) towards Indian position. Why would India sign in that case?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Dec 2009 10:39

What is really sad is that the debate was stuck till Sanathanan was forced to come out and drop the scientific non chalance and GoI machinery and resort to media attacks.

He is now being pilloried by some for staying "silent" for 11 years (when he was not and was trying the usual route to get to the goal), funny enough he was initially pilloried for being a maverick for speaking up.

Seems KS cant do anything right for some, damned if does, damned if he doesn't.

Meanwhile, KS provided the kick that is needed to restart the debate which was being buried at quick step after 123, of considering the strategic nuclear aspect.

More power to him, and yes I am under no illusions that things would be better if tried a different route.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2009 11:29

I have found a document that attempts to track proposals on both the CTBT and FMCT. There seems to have been some 40 proposals between 1995 and 2009 (included).

The last one from India - I found - is from march, 2009.

FMCT where Indians have participated is from June, 2009.

One critical word that India has always used WRT to FMCt has been changed. It was also used during the just completed Climate Change discussion in Copenhagen.

None of them ever mention the current controversy going on within India. None.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

I would very sincerely hope that Indian scicom will participate in a variety of forums out there and try and influence the drafts coming out. Instead of spending time on what India should not do, they should spend their time on drafting documents on what they feel the world should do - they certainly are more than capable of contributing at that level.

What India should not sign really will not have any meaning soon.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 22 Dec 2009 14:03

UK presses wary India for N-deal

The United Kingdom is pressing India to sign a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement quickly but New Delhi is holding out, seeking modifications in the agreement to cover its stand on non-proliferation.

It is learnt that New Delhi needs more clarity about parts of the agreement text dealing with India’s non-proliferation commitments in terms of making the country’s position of not subscribing to any “flawed, discriminatory” international regimes in the “less-than-four-page” agreement.

Germany keen on closer defence, civil nuclear ties

“After the Nuclear Suppliers Group clearance, I don’t see any impediment. In some areas, we can make offers you can’t refuse,” he said.

I think...we can bag a good deal....!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Dec 2009 18:07

NRao wrote:I have found a document that attempts to track proposals on both the CTBT and FMCT. There seems to have been some 40 proposals between 1995 and 2009 (included).

The last one from India - I found - is from march, 2009.

FMCT where Indians have participated is from June, 2009.

One critical word that India has always used WRT to FMCt has been changed. It was also used during the just completed Climate Change discussion in Copenhagen.

None of them ever mention the current controversy going on within India. None.

Can you provide a link to this? I would love to go through it.

My views on:
1. The S1 TN on 11 May: Test Device failed. This has less value today, more important is where India stands today wrt n weapons tech.
2. Deterrence: maintained wrt china even if india has only fission weapons. As long as India can deliver what it has into the chinese heartland there is deterrence. There is one vulnerability that I quoted a few posts ago, China using field weapons on indian forces and then putting the ball in India's court to see in india will respond.
3. K S episode: Clash of personalities, and ego issues aside, I am not prepared to shoot the messenger here or his purported targets. All have done yeoman service to India. KS can't be completely explicit on what he says in the media, AK/RC/ABV as a part of GoI did what they thought was the best course of action. Frmr Pres. APJAK, in view of his stature, needn't have inserted himself into this debate publically.
4. NPT: The recent position of GoI seems good. India is willing to join the NPT after it is included as a NWS. India hasn't proliferated so there should be no problems accepting this.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Dec 2009 21:12

Gagan wrote:
Kanson wrote:There is no impediment to testing. India has other means. I dont want to go further and spell it out. If you agree that BARC has found out what went wrong, if something went wrong in the first place, rest assured, as they know what they are doing, they know how to fix it.
Yes there is. And I don't see India's self imposed moratorium to be that impediment. I don't believe that the moratorium was resorted to so lightly either, and it certainly wasn't taken up because India's weapons development was complete.
If India tests, it will stand accused of breaking more than that self imposed moratorium.

No comments. I strongly believe, more than anyone here, BARC knows what it want to do and which one of the path available is right. Any recommendation is akin to armchair experts commenting on military strategies. BTW, there are many ways one can do testing, including sub-critical tests. Pls dont ponder over why this test is good and other is not. Again experience counts. No amount of glib talk brings anything valuable. Considering how many undeclared tests America conducted, and how many ways it created loop holes to cheat the treaty it has agreed upon, i can only say that self imposed moratorium is like anouncing everyone that you are wearing the chastity belt and more importantly holding the key for that with you. As long as you are not pregnant and get caught, it is believed that your chastity is intact. Only you knows what you are doing.

Kanson wrote:Sameway when ISRO commands Indian astronauts to fly in the spaceship for the first time. Same way when LCA team asked the test pilot to fly the plane for the first time. Like you, ofcourse, the pilot did asked the Q, whether it would fall apart. You know the answer what happened. Thats how BARC too can assuredly say what it want to say.
Oh saar, that analogy is close, but not quite it isn't it. With the agni-2 themselves we are witnessing quality control issues. There are issues related to field deployment. Stockpile management. Just testing once and then saying we are a N power is like projecting H&D. This goes beyond testing once and saying we are an N power - that was the first step only. The next steps are needed to be taken. This means end user testing, end user conducting minor repairs etc. N-weapons don't have long shelf lives, at least the triggers don't. These need to be replaced periodically. The boosting gas needs to be changed regularly. The levitated core with a surrounding vacuum (all this from open literature) appears to be a very sensitive structure in itself. Imagine a N weapon that has been mated to a missile and been lugged cross country for a month, its performance needs to be validated.

Kanson wrote:Even PKI talked out of turn. Does GoI punished him. So by your logic PKI should be correct, right? Let we keep our focus on 1998. If you watched the whole drama, though PKI like to toe the line of Santhanam wrt to TN part, never ever, PKI accepted Santhanam yield of S2( fission device) as 20-25kt, despite Santhanam describing that one "went line a song"[quoting exact words]. Not even once. PKI was indeed the Team leader of POK-I. So tell me who is correct. You want to say both of them are correct ? So if everyone is correct, why BARC alone is wrong ?
The problem here is people saying BARC is responsible or even RC/AK are hiding things. No, the reality is that these gentlemen and BARC is a GoI arm. It is GoI which has taken a certain stand based on wide considerations, that go beyond the mere success or failure of S1. When RC / AK /BARC say that S1 was x yield and S2 was y yield, that is GoI saying it. PKI and Santhanam's main issue (Apart from a clash of personalities) is that GoI's stand that everything is hunky dory is OK upto a point, but now is the time to test. I don't agree that they feared that MMS would sign upto something at washington either. MMS won't, he is also one of the cogs of what is GoI. The real issue is testing and verifying what has been developed.

Good. So i dont understand why you want to describe the Govt. action as "diabolical" in your previous reply. Slip of the tongue? If you permit may i point you the fallacy btw the last few lines and the rest of the para. If GoI can take decisions on wider considerations, armed with so many experts, dont they know when to test and how to verify. GoI includes the entire BARC and other depts. It has its own checks and balances. When there was some issues with the inclusion of FBR in N deal, it was AK who came out first. Santhanam lies at the periphery of POK 2 drama. Real action is carried out by BARC. If there is something wrong, they are the one who is going to rectify that and not Santhanam.

Again one more post linking Agni test and N weapon. As you say, you gain so much from reading open source, do justice in finding out how other nations take care of their stockpiles. Again these are 'open source' only. And so much is written on that.

Kanson wrote:S2 device is a derivative of POK-I (1974).
Only if you say that the LCA is a derivative of the HF-24 Marut. Pok-1 was a 1.5m cube, a nuclear test. S2 was likely the size of a domestic gas cylinder, with EMP proofed electronics, and safety measures, this was a nuclear weapon test.

Kanson wrote:Dhanush is also a Naval weapon like K-15. Dhanush is a strategic system. So why worry have curry. When you have more than 150 Prithvis marked as strategic, plus Agni-i, plus Agni-II, plus Dhaunush, plus gravity bombs - you want to call that "very few". Do the maths.
Inspite of all the Brahmos tests and the having been inducted into the army, today in Dec 2009, the armed forces will still be depending on conventional prithvis for hitting targets at 200-300 km. Ideally it should be Cruise missile-conventional, Ballistic missiles-nuclear, but it is not the case, yet. You are right on the Agni-1 and 2s, but where are the numbers of these two? Are there enough for a second strike wrt China? AFAIK, only ONE sukanya class ship carries ONE dhanush, I wouldn't say that that is a deployed weapon yet.

I politely say that your statements are not based on facts. Its too scattered and wayward. No offence though. For ex.

Ideally it should be Cruise missile-conventional, Ballistic missiles-nuclear, but it is not the case, yet.

N weapons are used as shells, depth charges, backpack bombs. Check out W80. There is nothing called ideal as you say. Pls dont believe everthing blurted out in BRF as gospel truth.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Dec 2009 21:50

Kanson thanks for replying.

Gagan wrote:Quote:
Ideally it should be Cruise missile-conventional, Ballistic missiles-nuclear, but it is not the case, yet.
N weapons are used as shells, depth charges, backpack bombs. Check out W80. There is nothing called ideal as you say. Pls dont believe everthing blurted out in BRF as gospel truth.

I am aware of this. But nuclear weapon delivery has evolved into ballistic missiles being the preferred means of delivery, while the US and other western powers and china have moved away from using cruise missiles to deliver nukes. India too does not want to send the impression that the Brahmos is in anyway related to nuclear weapons delivery.

Perhaps this is due to subsonic cruise missile's vulnerability as a system or to allow cruise missile usage at a level below the nuclear threshold.

Kanson wrote:I politely say that your statements are ... Its too scattered and wayward. No offence though. For ex.

Could you please specifically point out what is scattered and unclear? I felt that I had elaborated as best as I could.

The use of the word 'diabolical' is in the context of a rather hurried Unilateral Moratorium that the NDA government undertook. My understanding is that India does not take arbitary measures of such magnitude so lightly. My suspicion is that there was give and take, some commitments given then, whereupon that moratorium was undertaken.
MMS has referred to this IMHO, when he told the BJP that they were the ones who had undertaken the moratorium. That statement seemed slightly odd, and sounded like the NDA had agreed to something and the UPA was now dutybound to follow it.

Kanson wrote:Slip of the tongue?

I don't appreciate the intended sarcasm there. Lets be civil.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Dec 2009 22:11

No sarcasm intended, Gagan.

I am aware of this. But nuclear weapon delivery has evolved into ballistic missiles being the preferred means of delivery, while the US and other western powers and china have moved away from using cruise missiles to deliver nukes.

Proof ?

Perhaps this is due to subsonic cruise missile's vulnerability as a system or to allow cruise missile usage at a level below the nuclear threshold.

This is the reason, i said, whatever said in BRF is not Gospel truth.

The use of the word 'diabolical' is in the context of a rather hurried Unilateral Moratorium that the NDA government undertook. My understanding is that India does not take arbitary measures of such magnitude so lightly. My suspicion is that there was give and take, some commitments given then, whereupon that moratorium was undertaken.
MMS has referred to this IMHO, when he told the BJP that they were the ones who had undertaken the moratorium. That statement seemed slightly odd, and sounded like the NDA had agreed to something and the UPA was now dutybound to follow it.

Can i point out everything is your assumption - "sounded like", "agreed to something", "my understanding". Pls believe anyone sitting in the hot seat knows the situation very well. While at the hindsight any comments can be passed but the issue btw UPA and NDA is different. Uni Mort. are just tools for that.

Could you please specifically point out what is scattered and unclear? I felt that I had elaborated as best as I could.

I already gave an example. One more. You talk about Dhanush

AFAIK, only ONE sukanya class ship carries ONE dhanush, I wouldn't say that that is a deployed weapon yet.

Pls check it out

INS Subhadra and INS Suvarna have been modified to carry the Dhanush

And on what basis you are saying that has not deployed yet.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Dec 2009 07:53

Very good Kanson,
You finally made one point that can stand scrutiny. There are TWO sukanya class ships now equipped to carry the Dhanush.
I'm afraid I can't say the same about the rest of your post(s) that you've written in response to mine. They come across as arguing for the purpose of arguing. I don't see you presenting any valid points here.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Dec 2009 16:59

NRao wrote:One critical word that India has always used WRT to FMCt has been changed. It was also used during the just completed Climate Change discussion in Copenhagen.

I don't recall the GOI changing its stance on "verifiable"

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Dec 2009 17:13

Sanku wrote:Seems KS cant do anything right for some, damned if does, damned if he doesn't.

Why the nuclear deal is just not done

Dr Santhanam says, "After May 1998, there was a clear declaration from India that we don't have to conduct any more nuclear tests. India should not have any problem legalising this position. But this is subject to the condition that if the international security condition changes, then we should be allowed to test." He says the breakthrough will be that India should have a clause like this in the agreement, which would allow it to break the deal in case of a change in the international security condition.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Dec 2009 19:30

IOL: Areva is probably not going to get much biz in Abu Dhabi. As a result, They are pulling out all the stops to sell their 3rd gen (EPR) stuff to India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Dec 2009 20:40

Gerard wrote:
NRao wrote:One critical word that India has always used WRT to FMCt has been changed. It was also used during the just completed Climate Change discussion in Copenhagen.
I don't recall the GOI changing its stance on "verifiable"

Everything in due time.

"Major" players have moved from "no verifying" to "transparency"?

"Convergence" towards Indian position?

As long as THIS Pakistan and China exist, they have to move to Indian position.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Dec 2009 20:42

Gagan wrote: Can you provide a link to this? I would love to go through it.

Sorry. Missed that.

Please try google. Use the advanced feature and set the time to - say - a year. And search for "India CTBT FMCT".

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Dec 2009 01:23

NRao wrote:One critical word that India has always used WRT to FMCt has been changed. It was also used during the just completed Climate Change discussion in Copenhagen.

[/quote]Gerard: I recall only one instance, where a statement on FMCT, did not contain the word "Verifiable", but subsequent PR have that word in, so I do not think the GoI stance has changed, on the matter. On what is the likelihood of this stance succeeding, is another issue altogether.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Dec 2009 03:48

Gerard wrote:
NRao wrote:One critical word that India has always used WRT to FMCt has been changed. It was also used during the just completed Climate Change discussion in Copenhagen.
I don't recall the GOI changing its stance on "verifiable"

One more as a FYI: the acronym MRV as in Measure, Report and Verify. Copenhagen, 2009.

G, Considering that as little as year ago Bush was staunchly in the "No Verify" camp we have moved closer to the Indian position far more quickly than even I dreamt.

Also, there is at least one group that has reformulated the FMCT version to include "verify".

This is a very fluid environment - push-pull, politics and arms-twisting, etc. Fun times. Which is why I feel that Indian Scicom has a great chance to throw their weight around and make a difference. At least try.

If I sit on the side line and shout the shouting has not meaning.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Dec 2009 03:51

Gerard,

I think I did not form the first post right and then went on to misinterpret your post. Sorry about that.

The US for sure has moved from "No verify" to "transparency", which is in the direction of Indian "verify". True, India has not changed her posture. The others are moving towards Indian posture - which is what I meant to say in my earliest post.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 24 Dec 2009 18:44

NRao wrote:
Gagan wrote: Can you provide a link to this? I would love to go through it.
Sorry. Missed that.

Please try google. Use the advanced feature and set the time to - say - a year. And search for "India CTBT FMCT".

I was attempting to follow NRao's google search suggestion above. I could not quite determine, among the many documents thrown up by the search engine, which particluar one answerd the description in his earlier post

I have found a document that attempts to track proposals on both the CTBT and FMCT. There seems to have been some 40 proposals between 1995 and 2009 (included).

Nevertheless the search yielded this (apparently NPA) document, the title of which, to me, is misleading. I am posting its link here because I felt it might, some times, be useful to know what the "enemy" (in this case a typical anti-Indian mind) thinks.

Relative Roles of Breeders vs ALWRs In India’s Nuclear System, and U.S.’s and India’s Perceptions of the 123 Agreement By Chaim Braun, Consulting Professor, Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University

Presented at the University of Reading, Conference on the India – United States Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, Reading, U.K., September 14, 2009

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Dec 2009 19:49

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... afe=images

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Dec 2009 14:05

Pakistan now has more nuclear weapons than India:

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Dec 2009 19:00

During Operation Parakram, the US military released an estimate that India had five bombs...

Pakistan nukes outstrip India’s, officials say

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is vastly superior to that of rival India, with up to five times the nuclear warheads, say U.S. military and intelligence officials now reassessing the South Asian balance of power.

According to the Defense Department document, which is unclassified, India has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer aircraft capable of delivering a nuclear payload than Pakistan does

The U.S. report also states that “India probably has a handful of nuclear bombs,” meaning about five

A U.S. official stated that Pakistani air and missile delivery systems are now believed to be “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.” Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter-bombers, are superior at penetrating enemy airspace than India’s Soviet-designed MiGs and Sukhois.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Dec 2009 20:57

I've often wondered where the pakistanis get these funny ideas and why are their arguments so foolhardy.
Now I know. These guys try and ape the umreekan NPA's propoganda, except in pakistan's case they actually believe the bullshit they dish out. After watching Fox news for a few days, and experiencing first hand the analysis that goes on there, I feel that Pee TV and the pakistanis are only trying to ape massa.

This attempt by FAS would have been laughed off in India, but I suspect this would have been a huge moral booster for the porkis, who would have lapped it up, without letting the info filter through their grey matter.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Dec 2009 21:16

Well I like to take the attitude "Why not assume that these assessments are accurate and that Pakistan does have more nukes that are ready to deliver?"

It certainly is possible. After all Santhanam is living proof that India's deterrent is not much to write home about. How does it then become difficult to believe that the Pakistani arsenal is bigger and better?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Dec 2009 21:42

India had more number of nuclear reactors (25-28 odd) than china until very recently, and as per brijesh mishra's statement on NDTV, (During the 123 agreement days) India was using all its PHWRs for military uses. Mishra was initially unhappy when India announced that some reactors will be handed over to the civil side, and he commented that that leaves only half the number of reactors for military use. (There is a youtube video/NDTV video on this)

So given the stockpile that India has had all these years, the tech level that India has, someone saying that India has only 5 N bombs is not believable. If someone says only 5 TNs, maybe believable, 5 weapons loaded and mated and ready to go is OK, with a demated stockpile of xx numbers is OK, but only 5 bombs total in the stockpile, not possible.

The CIA chief summed it up best right after Pokharan-2 and their ability not to detect it,
He said, "This is the country that produced the scientists who gave us the intel chip". That is serious assessment.

FAS sounds like FOX and Glennbeck.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Dec 2009 21:47

Gagan wrote:India had more number of nuclear reactors (25-28 odd) than china until very recently, and as per brijesh mishra's statement on NDTV, (During the 123 agreement days) India was using all its PHWRs for military uses.

Do you have more to validate the highlighted portion?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Dec 2009 22:37

Gagan wrote:Very good Kanson,
You finally made one point that can stand scrutiny. There are TWO sukanya class ships now equipped to carry the Dhanush.
I'm afraid I can't say the same about the rest of your post(s) that you've written in response to mine. They come across as arguing for the purpose of arguing. I don't see you presenting any valid points here.

Same feelings here my friend. However i must admit that i'm not as lucky as you. Atleast you have one.

You reply clearly explains why it is necessary to discuss and debate based on facts, otherwise it derates the whole situation. And i agree on that.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Dec 2009 22:39

ShauryaT wrote:
Gagan wrote:India was using all its PHWRs for military uses.
Do you have more to validate the highlighted portion?

I'll try and find and post the video.