![Smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
Hope you don't mind mine english.
What is six months in the life of an ancient nation? This will remain a tantalising question that the United Progressive Alliance government refuses to answer regarding the raison d'etre of the India-United States civil nuclear cooperation agreement.
Amidst the cacophony over the deal, the Left has made a modest suggestion. Why don't we pause, take a six-month sabbatical and revisit the deal in a chastened mood? A wide body of public opinion harbours a sense of disquiet over the deal. But the government sidetracks the issue.
It resorts to banalities like 'This is the best deal that we can get', or, 'George Bush is the friendliest US President'. Like bloodhounds, the UPA's spin doctors pounce upon the critics of the deal, ridiculing them as 'anti-American' or 'Chinese agents', 'anti-national', 'Rip Van Winkles', and so on. Jawaharlal Nehru must be turning in his grave.
Meanwhile, it is left to the American Ambassador to India, David Mulford to crack the whip. 'Time is of the essence,' he announced in Delhi on Tuesday. 'Now we must take the last steps. This involves completing the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and securing the Nuclear Suppliers Group rule change. Finally US Congress must vote once more on the 123 agreement, an agreement best accomplished by this administration in the life of this Congress.'
It is inconceivable Mulford meant what he said, namely, that certainty of an enduring commitment to the deal is lacking among US politicians. American diplomats used to say 'strategic partnership' with India enjoys bipartisan consensus in the US. Indeed, Congress passed the notorious Hyde Act with a thumping majority.
So, where is the doublespeak? Clearly, the Bush administration is in a tearing hurry. The deal's sequencing has been altered. Instead of waiting for the IAEA negotiations to conclude, Washington sought an extraordinary meeting of the NSG.
Evidently, extraneous factors have come into play. First, the deal facilitates selective handling of the question of technology transfer to India. The deal and its political message enhance the prospects of gaining waivers on existing US embargos. Such waivers, in turn, are a pre-requisite for effective participation by the US in the tender floated by India for fighter aircraft.
The tender worth anywhere up to $16 billion (about Rs 64,000 crore) will be in three stages. First, a technical commission of the UPA government will examine the compliance of the bidders' proposals with the operational requirements of the Indian Air Force. Then, the bidding planes will undergo real-time tests. And, finally, commercial terms will be evaluated. Thus, participants must make their presentations within the next six months if they are to be eligible for consideration.
As of now, American companies participating in the tender -- Boeing with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin with the F-16 -- have to make their bids within prevailing US laws embargoing military technology transfer to India. (The Indian tender covers not only the delivery of aircraft but also their licensed co-production and much else that involves the transfer of state-of-the-art military technology.)
The fighter aircraft selected through the tender are expected to have a service life of 40 years. If the US doesn't secure the deal, forget about the so-called 'inter-operability' of the two armed forces. In the downstream, lack of 'inter-operability' will impede India joining the US-led national missile defence concept. India's participation in NMD (along with Japan [Images] and Australia in the Asian continent) is vitally important for the US geo-strategy of 'containment' of China (and Russia [Images]). The NMD is of fundamental importance to establishing US nuclear dominance over Russia and China.
But Mulford is right in a certain sense. There is a tactical consideration, too. The Bush administration is gearing up for a military attack on Iran. The military equipment required for a sea and air strike are already in the Persian Gulf aboard three aircraft-carrier battle groups. An attack on Iran would come anytime after the current IAEA work in Iran ends in December and the advent of desert summer.
The US administration and the UPA government will face an acute predicament unless the nuclear deal is got out of the way by January 2008. Washington's campaign on Iran's alleged nuclear programme would suffer if the nuclear deal is left hanging. The US's 'double standard' would become the stuff of ridicule.
Equally, for the UPA government, especially for Congress party, there is bound to be sensitivity in identifying with a US administration that is about to go on yet another 'crusade' against a Muslim country. For completely different reasons, therefore, the Manmohan Singh [Images] government and Bush administration have unspeakable concerns in ensuring that somehow the nuclear deal is wrapped up before the dogs of war are let loose in the Middle East.
M K Bhadrakumar is a former ambassador
KS should know better than others that there is always a first time.Even those who are worried about possible dimunition of sovereignty on account of India entering into international deals leading to the lifting of the technology embargo are not able to cite any past instance of India compromising on national sovereignty.
Abhi,abhischekcc wrote:So KS wants an example of when India compromised on national sovereignity? Eh?
You don't have to go too far - the withdrawal of Indian forces from an imminent war after the Parliament attack - mainly on account of American pressure delivered by people like Armitrage and nandan nilekani.
This was a compromise of national sovereignty? Folks, lets not bandy words around. The phrase "national sovereignty" has very specific meanings to someone like KS.You don't have to go too far - the withdrawal of Indian forces from an imminent war after the Parliament attack -
Can you enlighten us (moderatelyCalvin wrote:Folks, lets not bandy words around. The phrase "national sovereignty" has very specific meanings to someone like KS.
I for one have given up that habit since a long time. It just detracts from the general line of argument.It has become passe to call ABV, MMS and others "traitors" for various aspects of action and inaction associated with them.
Why do you suggest that a punishment of pakistan is 'impossible'? IMVHO, it is a necessity.Walking away from the impossible is not perfidy, it is good sense.
Yes. Unquestionably. Just like the Kandahar surrender.This was a compromise of national sovereignty?
I have different opinion of this word argumentative.It has nothing to do about legal or law.ramana wrote:KS is advocating Hudbhaya style of treaty making. This can be called realist school in diplomatic language but is still at variance with our legalistic, argumentative psyche. We are argumentative because our society is based on law and not on hudbhaya type realism.
See I am an argumentative Indian basing my arguements on law.
Try "hudaibiya". Agree for a Temporary peace, until you become stronger. That was the treaty at Hudaibiya with Mohammed on the side agreeing to this Temporary peace.SaiK wrote:I searched, but couldn't get it googled. what is hudbhaya technique?
Exactly my point really; he is using the worst case ejection seat mechanism as a justification to fly the prototype plane in any condition.ldev wrote: However at a later date if circumstances change radically enough such that India's sovereignity is at stake, India may have to revisit its agreements. And this revisiting has been done by various other nations at various points of time as KS has illustrated in his article.
If we Indians could see and agree on a threat early (a civilizational failing through the ages) we would never need the dirty techniques used by the barbarian nomadic tribes for our survival.Acharya wrote: Other countries and social groups see the threat to their existence early and awareness makes them to form uniform response which includes Hudbiya style. We are now learning the Hudbiya style foreign policy for our defense and survival.
An entire babu batch flown to the US for 'training'? Unkil's tentacles are deep. They've rightly identified the steel frame as the appropriate target that'll pay dividends in the long run far better than investing in messy desi netas, IMO.Recently many secretary-level officers of the government of India had to attend a four-week training programme organised by IIM Ahmedabad in collaboration with the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The entire 1991 batch of IAS officers was made to attend the training programme at the Administration Academy (no families or leave of absence allowed) at Mussoorie including a training visit to the US. This was the first time in the history of the civil service that an entire batch of mid-level officers were made to undergo training simultaneously. The induction training curriculum at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration at Mussoorie too has been changed substantially following recommendations made by the R. Vaidyanatha Ayyar committee. It now includes, inter alia, attachment with an NGO, greater knowledge about functioning of industries and businesses and greater sensitivity to the processes of history, politics and globalisation.
abcc: Do you still think that this is a valid example, after the posts by Ramana and others above? "Sovereignty" has a very specific meaning.Just like the Kandahar surrender.
Diplomacy and Politics are the art of the possible. What KS is pointing out is that the agreement we have here, will give us a lot of what we want, and in the event that it doesnt - we have a a "get out" clause.he is using the worst case ejection seat mechanism as a justification to fly the prototype plane in any condition.
Politicians in India have always been very smart. The reason CPM suddenly after 3 years in power starting acting so forcefully is because elections are coming. Keep a note of sound bites and the actual actions.joshvajohn wrote: Karat's foolishness will lead to CPM defeat in the next election! Congress in advantage position - possibly with UPA without CPM a possible majority if something worked out with Mayawathi. BJP no loss no gain! remain the same or less. Hope the incoming one will continue with US the same policy!
Indians can see the threat early but psy ops media and indoctrination has removed the response from the leadership. This can be easily seen in the 80s-90s.Sanku wrote:If we Indians could see and agree on a threat early (a civilizational failing through the ages) we would never need the dirty techniques used by the barbarian nomadic tribes for our survival.Acharya wrote: Other countries and social groups see the threat to their existence early and awareness makes them to form uniform response which includes Hudbiya style. We are now learning the Hudbiya style foreign policy for our defense and survival.
Our strength; that is the ability to see many paths and the sophistatication to life is our weakness at the same time; it makes us want to get a refined solution when a sledgehammer suffices.
This is totally OT for this thread but the world does not begin and end with psy ops and to state that the problem is there only because of psy ops in the last 60 years is inaccurate. The fundamental problem is the inability of Indians from the time of the first Muslim invasions under the Ummayad caliphate in the 7th century to the subsequent invasions by Mahmud Ghazni and others later, to defend India and furthermore even if faced with defeat initially, to be able to rally around and ultimately drive the invaders out. Spain was conquered by the Muslims in circa 700AD but after 700 years of occupation, the Muslims armies were driven out of Europe in the 14th century. And in addition the Christians of Europe thereafter attempted to follow the Muslim armies back to the Middle East during the Crusades. India has not been successful either in defending its territory completely or in following the invaders back to their home soil in retibution. Why? Maybe this question can be investigated in the Indian interests thread. But to assign everything to psy ops is plain wrong. What psy ops occurred in the 10th century when Mahmud Ghazni was maurauding India?Acharya wrote:Indians can see the threat early but psy ops media and indoctrination has removed the response from the leadership. This can be easily seen in the 80s-90s.
The world of media and psy ops in the last 60 years has increased in sophistication and India has been a largest target.
It may look silly but with awareness this become very powerful. The main weapon of the western countries is the psy ops media.ldev wrote:
This is totally OT for this thread but the world does not begin and end with psy ops and to state that the problem is there only because of psy ops in the last 60 years is inaccurate.
We are not talking of the medival times. Colonial and subjugating forces were totally different from the stable soceities of the east. The ideologies were alien and still are alien to Indian thought process.The fundamental problem is the inability of Indians from the time of the first Muslim invasions under the Ummayad caliphate in the 7th century to the subsequent invasions by Mahmud Ghazni and others later, to defend India and furthermore even if faced with defeat initially, to be able to rally around and ultimately drive the invaders out.
India has not been successful either in defending its territory completely or in following the invaders back to their home soil in retibution. Why? Maybe this question can be investigated in the Indian interests thread. But to assign everything to psy ops is plain wrong. What psy ops occurred in the 10th century when Mahmud Ghazni was maurauding India?
1. The "public" generally does not speak with one voice....the leadership on the other hand may have their own interests behind pushing through any deal and may not necessarily always converge with the interests of public.
In a polity, such as India, The Indian public does not speak with one voice, on most issues, because, the republic, its current and past leaders, have done a poor job of uniting Indians as Indian, first.Calvin wrote: 1. The "public" generally does not speak with one voice.
Indeed not and is not the case in most republics. However, the case in most republics, is the elected representatives of the people get their way. However, in India, due to the disqualification acts, along with party whips and the lack of a true federal system, the status of the elected parliamentarians in decision making, is largely reduced to that of a sheep with their leaders acting as the shepherds. This has resulted in a concetration of power in the hands of the very few, sometimes, even in the hands of extra constitutional powers, such as Sonia and Bal Thackeray.2. In a constitutional republic, the "majority" of the "public" do not get their way every time.
That is why, there is an elected representative system. The representatives are accountable to the people.3. Just because the public wants something, doesn't mean that they are right.
It had the majority support in congress. The congress continues to not use its power to stop funding for the war, as was done for Vietnam. The public can be manipulated. If the number of deaths, of Americans in the war goes down, significantly, along with its costs, the scene will change.For #2, see the US invasion of Iraq
Complete side show the demands of the relatives was. There were no real good choices. It would have been possible for the BJP, to stand up in the name of national security and possibly put the lives of the passengers of IC 814 at great risk. In reality, there was no way out, in a land locked Afghanistan, and no assets, who could intervene in the time period invloved.For #3, see the public demand for terrorist release in regard to IC814.
The Israeli cabinet faced similar public pressure over the Entebbe hostages. Release of jailed terrorists was considered but they had the option for a possible military solution (unlike India) . Even so, the decision was not an easy one for their cabinet. Many ministers advocated release of the terrorists. When they finally agreed on the raid, the Israeli PM turned to Shimon Peres and told him the commandos could go, Peres told him "they are already in the air." He was ready to call them back at any time but had ordered them to take off since time was running out.Complete side show the damands of the relatives was.
Gerard: To clarify, my point was, it is not that the government caved into the demands of the relatives, as the cynics make it out to be.Gerard wrote:The Israeli cabinet faced similar public pressure over the Entebbe hostages. Release of jailed terrorists was considered but they had the option for a possible military solution (unlike India) . Even so, the decision was not an easy one for their cabinet. Many ministers advocated release of the terrorists. When they finally agreed on the raid, the Israeli PM turned to Shimon Peres and told him the commandos could go, Peres told him "they are already in the air." He was ready to call them back at any time but had ordered them to take off since time was running out.Complete side show the damands of the relatives was.
This is a ludicrous comment.The Indian public does not speak with one voice, on most issues, because, the republic, its current and past leaders, have done a poor job of uniting Indians as Indian, first.
Mahatma Gandhi was the first extra-constitutional concentration of power in this country. Extraconstitutional influences are, ipso facto, not anti-democratic.However, in India, due to the disqualification acts, along with party whips and the lack of a true federal system, the status of the elected parliamentarians in decision making, is largely reduced to that of a sheep with their leaders acting as the shepherds. This has resulted in a concetration of power in the hands of the very few, sometimes, even in the hands of extra constitutional powers, such as Sonia and Bal Thackeray.
Ah, how does this square with the original allegation in regard to the "interests of the public" which was seemingly incontrovertible. So, perhaps, you were merely using the "public" to advance another agenda.The public can be manipulated.
Calvin wrote:This is a ludicrous comment.The Indian public does not speak with one voice, on most issues, because, the republic, its current and past leaders, have done a poor job of uniting Indians as Indian, first.
The polity that are opposing this are not opposing it because they are not Indians, nor are the people supporting this supporting this because they are not Indians. Look at this forum. Are you suggesting that half of this forum are not Indian?
However, in India, due to the disqualification acts, along with party whips and the lack of a true federal system, the status of the elected parliamentarians in decision making, is largely reduced to that of a sheep with their leaders acting as the shepherds. This has resulted in a concetration of power in the hands of the very few, sometimes, even in the hands of extra constitutional powers, such as Sonia and Bal Thackeray.
Mahatma Gandhi was the first extra-constitutional concentration of power in this country. Extraconstitutional influences are, ipso facto, not anti-democratic.
And yet, successive governments spanning the political spectrum succeeded in creating one of the most stable polities in the world.
Despite this "concentration of power in extra constitutional hands" governments have routinely been voted out of office.
The public can be manipulated.
Go right ahead and read my mind, on what my "agenda" is. Is this about the only thing, you can come up with, if people are not in agreement with you. I do not even understand, what you are referring to. What part of my statement is contravening, to what I have said above?Ah, how does this square with the original allegation in regard to the "interests of the public" which was seemingly incontrovertible. So, perhaps, you were merely using the "public" to advance another agenda.
Code: Select all
May 17, 2007
[b]A nuclear test by itself does not give one a deterrent capability. In fact, a single or even a few nuclear tests do not mean anything at all.[/b]
There are many reasons related to the physics and engineering of nuclear bombs or warheads that necessitate a full testing programme for each weapon design. There are still more reasons related to the concept, strategy and psychology of deterrence that also necessitate continued nuclear testing.
There are plenty of reports in America that attest to the importance of weapons designs undergoing full testing programmes before they are given to the military for induction.
In 1987, for instance, an American committee set out to rubbish an earlier report that had said nuclear testing was necessary to maintain nuclear weapons. [b]The second report actually ended up concluding that: 'Most of the reliability problems in the past have resulted from either an incomplete testing program during the development phase of a weapon or the aging and deterioration of weapon components during deployment'.[/b]
The Indo-US nuclear deal | The nuclear deal chats
[b]Robert Joseph, the current Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, who has insisted that India should undertake not to conduct any further nuclear tests in exchange for civil nuclear cooperation, had concluded in a 1998 study that 'retaining the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing is the highest-risk component of the US strategy for sustaining deterrence'.[/b]
If these reports from a nation that has conducted over a thousand nuclear tests, and built and deployed thousands of nuclear weapons over the last six decades, are not enough to make the Manmohan Singh government give some more thought to the 'no more nuclear tests' diktat of the Hyde Act, consider what a former nuclear weapons testing expert has said.
[b]
Some years ago, Theodore Taylor, a former nuclear weapons testing expert at the Lawrence Livermoore Nuclear Laboratory explained the necessity of thoroughly testing different types of nuclear weapons.[/b]
According to Taylor, zero-yield testing would suffice to give confidence that simple fission weapons would work. Such tests can be done 'by producing a fission yield high enough to be observable with radiation detectors placed close to the weapon, but still equivalent to less than 1 gram of high explosive'.[b] To be confident about boosted fission weapons, however, 'these have to be tested at full or close to full yield'.
[/b]
Says Taylor: '�there is some minimum threshold yield below which tests of boosting are not possible� Deviations from idealized, calculated performance� along with the considerable complexity of the boosting process itself -- involving important feedbacks between fission and fusion as the explosion proceeds -- tend to make it necessary to test boosted weapons at full yield if they are to be put into weapons stockpiles�
'[b]How well boosting will work in a weapon of a particular design cannot be determined with high confidence by calculations, laboratory tests,[/b] or very low yield nuclear tests� Data from past nuclear tests incorporating boosting can help considerably in predicting the performance of new types of boosted weapons. Without prior experience of this kind, however, weapon developers would need to test boosted weapons to be confident of their performance'.
A[b]bout thermonuclear weapons, 'It is difficult to imagine confident stockpiling of thermonuclear weapons by a country that has never tested any with yields substantially larger than the yields of their fission triggers..[/b]. thermonuclear weapons are substantially more complex and subject to performance uncertainties than fission weapons. Confident development of thermonuclear weapons is therefore likely to require nuclear tests with yields greater than a quarter or so of the full design yield'.
Accepting Taylor's wisdom, we must conclude that to be able to build 100 KT boosted fission weapons and confidently induct them into the arsenal, India would have to test such a device at close to that yield at least once. To be able to build 200-500 KT warheads � a capability claimed by India � it would have to test a thermonuclear device at 50-125 KT yield at least once. India has done neither until now.
[b]There is yet another crucial consideration for India. Suppose it continues to observe its not-so-voluntary moratorium on testing for the next two decades, as it did between 1974 and 1998. At a later date, it is likely to find itself unable to conduct nuclear tests even if it wanted to or to make nuclear weapons of new designs.[/b]
That's because, as Professors Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi of the University of Edinburgh found out, making nuclear weapons involves a lot of tacit knowledge that is innate to those working, say, on a lump of plutonium which has to be machined into a very precise shape and size for every particular equation of state.
Such expertise and experience were available to India in 1998 even after a gap of 24 years because many of the scientists, engineers, technologists and machinists who were involved with the 1974 test were still around in 1998. But ten or twenty years from now, they won't be, and in all likelihood all that tacit knowledge � which is non-transferrable -- will be gone with them. And the Indian nuclear weapons programme will have to start from scratch again.
Given these realities, the Indian claims of not needing any more nuclear tests and its continued observance of its voluntary moratorium seem silly. No wonder the world refuses to regard India as a nuclear weapons power.
It is time to put an end to our jingoism and silly claims and to prove our deterrent capability. As someone said, ''[b]deterrence, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder''. And if the beholder cannot see a well-tested 100 KT warhead, he is unlikely to be deterred for long.
Date Name Yield (kT) Country Significance
Jul 16 1945 Trinity 19 Flag of the United States USA First fission device test
Aug 6 1945 Little Boy 15 Flag of the United States USA Bombing of Hiroshima, Japan
Aug 9 1945 Fat Man 21 Flag of the United States USA Bombing of Nagasaki, Japan
Aug 29 1949 Joe 1 22 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR First fission weapon test by the USSR
Oct 3 1952 Hurricane 25 Flag of the United Kingdom UK First fission weapon test by the UK
Nov 1 1952 Ivy Mike 10,400 Flag of the United States USA First "staged" thermonuclear weapon test (not deployable)
Aug 12 1953 Joe 4 400 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR First fusion weapon test by the USSR (not "staged", but deployable)
Mar 1 1954 Castle Bravo 15,000 Flag of the United States USA First deployable "staged" thermonuclear weapon; fallout accident
Nov 22 1955 RDS-37 1,600 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR First "staged" thermonuclear weapon test by the USSR (deployable)
Nov 8 1957 Grapple X 1,800 Flag of the United Kingdom UK First (successful) "staged" thermonuclear weapon test by the UK
Feb 13 1960 Gerboise Bleue 70 Flag of France France First fission weapon test by France
Oct 31 1961 Tsar Bomba 50,000 Flag of the Soviet Union USSR Largest thermonuclear weapon ever tested
Oct 16 1964 596 22 Flag of the People's Republic of China China First fission weapon test by China
Jun 17 1967 Test No. 6 3,300 Flag of the People's Republic of China China First "staged" thermonuclear weapon test by China
Aug 24 1968 Canopus 2,600 Flag of France France First "staged" thermonuclear test by France
May 18 1974 Smiling Buddha 12 Flag of India India First fission nuclear explosive test by India
May 11 1998 Shakti I 43 Flag of India India First potential fusion/boosted weapon test by India
(exact yields disputed, between 25kt and 45kt)
May 11 1998 Shakti II 12 Flag of India India First deployable fission weapon test by India
May 28 1998 Chagai-I 9-12? Flag of Pakistan Pakistan First fission weapon test by Pakistan
Oct 9 2006 Hwadae-ri <1 Flag of North Korea North Korea First fission device tested by North Korea
Let's take any of the recent terrorist outrages in India - Parliament attack, Kaluchak, etc, etc.Calvin wrote:abcc: Do you still think that this is a valid example, after the posts by Ramana and others above? "Sovereignty" has a very specific meaning.Just like the Kandahar surrender.
Wikipedia, as usual, has relatively acceptable primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignt ... tional_law