PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear weapons used in next 30 years?



cape_royds
28 Jan 07,, 02:09
Do you expect nuclear weapons to be employed somewhere in the world, sometime in the next 30 years, i.e. in the current generation?

I'm not asking if you think it's merely possible. The word expect is in the question to mean that "you would be surprised if they were not used." Note also I'm not allowing any wriggling in the poll--it's a straight yes-or-no.

If you do expect nuclear weapons to be employed in the next thirty years, where would expect them to be used, by whom, and under what sort of circumstances?

I indicate "yes." In 1999, while out on the lake fishing, a friend asked me for a millenium prediction. In reply I told him that I predicted the following:

a) Nuclear weapons would be used sometime in the next thirty years,
b) They would be used by a nuclear-armed country against a people without such arms,
c) It would most likely be done by the USA against a country which they deemed a threat to the global liberal capitalist order,
d) Such a decision would be made because conventional enforcement of the prevailing world order would be too costly, too slow, or too uncertain, and a further contributing factor would be that,
e) Over time the Cold War-era cultural taboo against nuclear weapons would erode, with the passing of the generations who lived through the mid-20th century.

The reasoning behind my prediction was that by the end of the 20th century, a certain kind of global economic and political order was taking shape, that I was sure that this order would be challenged, and that those upholding the global order would be so heavily staked to its preservation that they would in the end abide by no limit in their defense of their world-system.

So there's my answer to the poll. Now for the retaliatory strikes!

subba
28 Jan 07,, 18:37
Cape Sir, the answer is a definitive YES.

The cities where they will detonate will lie in India, Israel or the US.

The acts though with knowledge and connivance of state actors will be carrie out by non-state actors.

No nation state will attack another nation state (with or without nuclear weapons) with nuclear weapons.

If Iran was serious about nuking Israel all it has to do is supply plutoniun/ enriched uranium, lenses and triggers to some Al Qaeda affiliate group who will pass it to some obscure Palestinian or sunni group. Iran will wash it's hands off.

If Pakistan is serious about nuking India it will pass off the same equipment to some obscure again Al Qaeda or Kashmiri group to detonate one or more in a few Indian cities.

When and if so that happens both the state actors (Iran and Pakistan) will give all the correct PC responses and even offer aid. Thus preventing a state to state nuclear retaliation.

However both will say this is due to unresolved problems.

The retaliation in the circumstances cannot be against a nation state unless definitive evidence is uncovered.

Presently official US and Indian response to such an event is rooted in 'ambiguity'.

T_igger_cs_30
28 Jan 07,, 18:47
Subba, I agree with your post it raises but one question for me, if you could give me your feeling.

Do you think Pakistan would ever really consider "nukeing" India?....either as a nation or through subversive methods.

subba
28 Jan 07,, 19:22
Do you think Pakistan would ever really consider "nukeing" India?....either as a nation or through subversive methods.

T igger sir, absolutely. Historically whenever they have had any new weaponry they have attacked India with it. The obsession Pakistan has with Kashmir and India is phenomenal. The reason for propping Taliban and Al Qaeda was exactly that. Even Zia in the 80's was happy at the Idea of training Islamic soldiers against Soviets in Afghanistan. He saw their future. If they could take on the Soviet Army why not the Indian. After the Soviets left Afghanistan the Kashmir insurgency commenced.

The desire among the Pakistani establishment to establish Islamic rule in India is not just a wet dream. It is within it's polity. They know exactly how they go about it. Kashmir is just a step. Musharaff is on record that Kashmir is just one step, but the end lies in driving a tank to the Red fort and offering Namaz at the Jama Masjid in Delhi.

Notice how India and Israel stand as sore thumbs to the Islamic stretch in the Middle East to Pakistan. These two are prime targets. The battle is on much before the US started the WOT sir.

T_igger_cs_30
28 Jan 07,, 19:30
Thanks subba interesting reply for me, I have of course known about 'relations" between the 2 countries historicly, but since the soviet departure from Afghanistan, being busy myself :rolleyes:not as upto date as I perhaps should be, however it would appear relations are worsening not improving

subba
28 Jan 07,, 20:11
T igger sir, you're most welcome. However there's a more serious dimension that will unfold. Imagine Haifa or Tel Aviv is nuked, 50,000 dead each city. Whats Israel going to do? It will possibly nuke out Mecca and Medina among it's options.

What will be the response of Muslims in UK or India to say Mecca getting nuked? If cartoons on the Prophet in Denmark can kindle street battles against the establishment in India and other parts of the world, you can well imagine what will happen if Mecca is done to glass in response to a terrorist nuke in Israel.

PS: After 911 the time when Armitage made the blunt 'bomb you to stone age' comment to Musharaff, there were Pakistani officials who made clear that any US attack on Pakistan would be met with nuclear weapons being used on India. :eek:

T_igger_cs_30
28 Jan 07,, 20:14
Again thanks all your points are valid and I do think of them, I was interested in your personal opinion to the Pak/Ind question I asked you, again many thanks

xrough
29 Jan 07,, 01:17
Subba, I just wondering if the Indians will not ask themselves where the Al Qaeda will get there nukes?Or I think Mecca is in Saudi Arabia?and Saudi is another ally of US in MIddle East..I will wonder what will be the reaction of US if Israel will nuke Saudi..

Grim Reaper
29 Jan 07,, 02:14
I seriously don't think the U.S. would do anything to Isreal if it nukes saudi, heck they should nuke as much muslim cities as they can, the U.S. shouldn't have a problem once Isreal was nuked first.

subba
29 Jan 07,, 15:52
Subba, I just wondering if the Indians will not ask themselves where the Al Qaeda will get there nukes?Or I think Mecca is in Saudi Arabia?and Saudi is another ally of US in MIddle East..I will wonder what will be the reaction of US if Israel will nuke Saudi..

Xrough sir, you are assuming rationality of response. If Israel is almost destroyed by nukes or India loses 2 million people in hours, how do you think one should naturally respond?

Any country that gets nuked should also rationally base or position it's response as irrational. So Israel, India, UK or France whosoever suffers the depradations of a nuke attack will judge and respond with overwhelming force wherever so they desire.

Why should Israel not hold Islam responsible as a whole and retaliate against it's bastions?

Remember the US response even to 911 was not exactly rooted in rationality.

xrough
30 Jan 07,, 00:00
Xrough sir, you are assuming rationality of response. If Israel is almost destroyed by nukes or India loses 2 million people in hours, how do you think one should naturally respond?

Any country that gets nuked should also rationally base or position it's response as irrational. So Israel, India, UK or France whosoever suffers the depradations of a nuke attack will judge and respond with overwhelming force wherever so they desire.

Why should Israel not hold Islam responsible as a whole and retaliate against it's bastions?

Remember the US response even to 911 was not exactly rooted in rationality.

I think that is not acceptable to nuke all the Muslims in the Middle East especially a friendly state like Saudi if only some country or some group destroyed the cities of Israel..

Debbie
30 Jan 07,, 02:27
I fully expect in the next 30 years something nuclear will take place. My gut feeling though, is that the incident would not be triggered by a real issue but rather an accidental use of nuclear power - meaning - oops, we didn't really mean for THAT to happen and retaliation ensues worldwide. We could speculate and place into conjecture who, why and how, but really it is all subjective until it happens.

Tronic
31 Jan 07,, 16:52
I think that is not acceptable to nuke all the Muslims in the Middle East especially a friendly state like Saudi if only some country or some group destroyed the cities of Israel..
Saudi monarchy is pro-American, below them you have huge anti-American masses...


Subba, I just wondering if the Indians will not ask themselves where the Al Qaeda will get there nukes?
Pakistan, a no brainer... If a nuke really goes off in an Indian city, the retaliatory strikes would cease Pakistan to exist as a country... since it is one of the two countries(other being China) that has nukes pointed at India... and China at present does not really have a major desire to fight a nuclear war with India...


Or I think Mecca is in Saudi Arabia?and Saudi is another ally of US in MIddle East..I will wonder what will be the reaction of US if Israel will nuke Saudi..
Saudis have oil... and the Americans cannot allow the tap to be shut... I'm guessing American response will not be in favour of Israel...

zraver
07 Feb 07,, 00:49
I expect they will be used, but by the US to take out Iranian assets threatening the Strait of Hormuz. Both to take out the bulk of the anti-shipping weapons and send a very clear message to the clerics that its time to stop acting like idiots and prodding the giant who also happens to have the bigest F'ing stick any would be despotic state has ever been threatened with a beat down by.

Zeng
07 Feb 07,, 02:32
Unbelievable, so many people expect that nuclear weapons will be employed within 30 years. Are the human beings insane? We are really living in a dangerous world :mad:

gunnut
07 Feb 07,, 07:19
I do not expect nuclear weapons to be used by a nation state. There's too much at stake for a nation state to use this type of weapon.

I do not expect the US to use nuclear weapons unless we feel our very own survival depends on it. And that better be a hell of a threat.

However, a terrorist organization, just might use such a weapon if it can pull it off.

xrough
12 Feb 07,, 08:33
Let's face the reality that at of this time we cannot stop the nuclear countries to suspend the development of their nuclear weapons especially US, China, Russia, India, etc...let's hope that no one will push the trigger...

Zeng
13 Feb 07,, 03:26
China promised "No First Use under any circumstance" nuke policy from the first day it tested Nuke. Although there were arguments in China whether we should give up this promise, it is still the Chinese government nuclear weapon policy.

I think that China is the only nuclear country that made such promise and hope that other countries can make the same promise.

Bluesman
19 Feb 07,, 03:17
China promised "No First Use under any circumstance" nuke policy from the first day it tested Nuke. Although there were arguments in China whether we should give up this promise, it is still the Chinese government nuclear weapon policy.

I think that China is the only nuclear country that made such promise and hope that other countries can make the same promise.

O)h, swell - a commie promise in regards to weapons usage.

Well, I guess we're all set, then.

No offense, brother, but we've all seen what the word of a communist government is worth.

indian_surfer
28 Feb 07,, 13:11
China promised "No First Use under any circumstance" nuke policy from the first day it tested Nuke. Although there were arguments in China whether we should give up this promise, it is still the Chinese government nuclear weapon policy.

I think that China is the only nuclear country that made such promise and hope that other countries can make the same promise.

India has.:)

No first use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use)

GVChamp
28 Feb 07,, 18:20
Eventually, some terrorist organization is going to be smart(or lucky) enough to acquire WMDs and stupid enough to use it against one of the major powers.
I'd be willing to bet the response would be nuclear.

subba
28 Feb 07,, 19:45
Eventually, some terrorist organization is going to be smart(or lucky) enough to acquire WMDs and stupid enough to use it against one of the major powers.
I'd be willing to bet the response would be nuclear.

Response against whom?

Zeng
01 Mar 07,, 01:04
India has.:)

No first use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use)

I stand corrected.

GVChamp
01 Mar 07,, 02:48
Response against whom?

Whatever poor third world nation has the misfortune of being hated by the nuclear superpower.

subba
01 Mar 07,, 13:37
Whatever poor third world nation has the misfortune of being hated by the nuclear superpower.

Champion sir, i am sure you put a lot of thought into posting that..;)

kams
01 Mar 07,, 13:49
China promised "No First Use under any circumstance" nuke policy from the first day it tested Nuke. Although there were arguments in China whether we should give up this promise, it is still the Chinese government nuclear weapon policy.

I think that China is the only nuclear country that made such promise and hope that other countries can make the same promise.

China has not extended its No first use policy to India.

Vinod2070
01 Mar 07,, 14:48
Pakistan is the one most likely to use it first either itself or through a terrorist organization. No civilian democratic government will do this unless it's a question of the nation's survival.

Pakistan may hypothetically come under US attack in future because of it's duplicious role in the WOT and may try to take it out on India/Israel. Would be a big mistake though.

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 07,, 16:04
China has not extended its No first use policy to India.


Neither China, India, nor Pakistan is capable of a 1st strike, at least a counter-force 1st strike. All their nukes are stored away from their delivery vehicles and moving them would be very, very noticeable.

kams
01 Mar 07,, 17:29
Neither China, India, nor Pakistan is capable of a 1st strike, at least a counter-force 1st strike. All their nukes are stored away from their delivery vehicles and moving them would be very, very noticeable.

Sir,
None of the above have as extensive ISR capability as USA. While US may be able to detect preparation for pre-emptive strike by any of the above countries, it's capability to influence the events is limited at best. (If we assume Nukes are last resort weapons, and not some nut case deciding that he can win a Nuke war). While I do not think Chinese leadership is that Irresponsible, I can not say the same for Pakistani Leadership.

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 07,, 19:42
The question is still can a Chinese 1st strike neutralize an Indian response. I would say no. And there is no way that a Pak 1st strike could even come close.

kams
01 Mar 07,, 19:48
The question is still can a Chinese 1st strike neutralize an Indian response. I would say no. And there is no way that a Pak 1st strike could even come close.

I agree with you, none of the above have that capability. That should deter a Rational leader.

subba
01 Mar 07,, 20:02
All their nukes are stored away from their delivery vehicles and moving them would be very, very noticeable.

Pardon me OOE Colonel sir, but even if the warheads are separate, they need not be so far that it could not be put together..with others noticing. How is it possible then that 1st strike capability is not with China or India or Pakistan? They do have it.

We can possibly notice the launch in real time, but not the mating of warheads..

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 07,, 20:21
In the case of the Chinese, the military, the 2nd Artillery Force, has been so frustrated with the civilians, the Central Military Commission, who holds the keys to the nukes that even during exercises, the 2AF could not even get the civies to practice to get their keys out.

That frustration has resulted in the 2AF giving up on nukes and going the conventional route. The Chinese pioneered in MRBM and IRBM barrage salvo tactics. The route to speedy promotion is now the conventional force and not the nuclear force.

subba
01 Mar 07,, 20:41
OOe sir, fine point. Civilians hold the key in China. Probably true in India too. ;) But what prevents Pakistan not having 1st strike capability? Or North Korea? Even if civilian Kim holds the key. 1st strike is a capability. Any nation with nuclear weapons HAS 1st strike capability..

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 07,, 20:47
Pak nukes are aircraft delivered which calls into question their ability to penetrate deep into Indian territory. The North Koreans don't have nukes. They tested a dud which meant they have to start from scratch. And their rockets explode more on the launch pads than on target.

kams
01 Mar 07,, 22:01
OOe sir, fine point. Civilians hold the key in China. Probably true in India too. ;) But what prevents Pakistan not having 1st strike capability? Or North Korea? Even if civilian Kim holds the key. 1st strike is a capability. Any nation with nuclear weapons HAS 1st strike capability..

Hmmm No. When we say First strike, aim is to take out enemy nuclear retaliatory capability, so as to give you a realistic chance of surviving retaliatory strike. No point in taking out couple of Enemy cities, only to have your whole nation converted to glass. To prevent this nations build suvivable nuclear capability i.e Mobile Missiles, Dispersed hardened Silo, Submarine based capability etc. and they build large arsenals to ensure some will survive. Now building and maintaining this kind of capability is extremely expensive. (There are some estimates that India's nuclear triad will cost as much as $200-$250 Billion to build and maintain. Unless you have the economy to support such arsenal, result will be ...Soviet Union.

Now all this supposed to rational nuclear deterence :redface: . Throw in a irrational mullah, guess what will happen.

Zeng
02 Mar 07,, 00:40
China has not extended its No first use policy to India.

Kams,

China‘s No first use policy applies to India and any nations.
Thanks for trusting that China will not be irresponsible on nuke use.

China‘s No first use policy from a China's web-link:
China affirms 'no first use' nuke policy (http://www.nyconsulate.prchina.org/eng/xw/t204631.htm)

China‘s No first use policy from a non-China's web-link:
NTI: Issue Brief: The Strategic Realities of China's No-First-Use Policy (http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_70.html)

kams
02 Mar 07,, 04:14
Kams,

China‘s No first use policy applies to India and any nations.
Thanks for trusting that China will not be irresponsible on nuke use.

China‘s No first use policy from a China's web-link:
China affirms 'no first use' nuke policy (http://www.nyconsulate.prchina.org/eng/xw/t204631.htm)

China‘s No first use policy from a non-China's web-link:
NTI: Issue Brief: The Strategic Realities of China's No-First-Use Policy (http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_70.html)

Zeng,
There are many interpretations of China's No first use policy, specifically wrt India. General consensus has been its not applicable to India.
1. One view is that Chinas NFU does not apply on its own soil. China considers Taiwan and large part of Arunachal pradesh as its territory.
2. Another view is that NFU applies to NPT signatories, India is not a signatory.

Indian strategists and policy makers contend that Chinas NFU does not apply to India and India's minimum deterrence is decided accordingly.

Militarythinker
02 Mar 07,, 07:39
I personally don't know if there will be nuclear weapon use in the next 30 years. However if there is, I would bet it won't be by any established government. It will probably some crazy terrorist organization that gets their hands on a dirty nuke. That way they can hide in another country and make it politically difficult for the country they hit to retaliate. Slimy buggers...

Dreadnought
02 Mar 07,, 17:33
IMO a definative NO. The first such action will send ripples through out the world. Whomever fires the first one can gladly have the U.S.'s place as bad guy on the block. Chances are the country that fired it would be sanctioned to no end War Crimes trials would ensue and you will see a reconfigure of Allies in that part of the world. The fall out from said attack would drift to other countries and spark retalliation from poisoning,bodies of water being poisoned, Livestock dead etc not to mention the death toll from sickness and disease. I strongly doubt that any leader/regime would be in power shortly thereafter much less alive after the trials.

Bluesman
02 Mar 07,, 18:32
I don't think you really 'get' the guys in Iran, then.

A-jad is the ideological descendent of Ayatollah Khomeini, so let's let HIM fill us in on how they see all that bad stuff that would happen to 'em if they busted a nuke:


'We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.'
Speech in Qom 1980

Now, I know it is human nature to flinch when one looks in the face of Evil. But that's going to get us all killed. So, can the ones among us that simply don't have the sack for what's coming PLEASE stop hampering us with their attempts to re-assure themselves that our enemies don't really mean what they say, and let the rest of us that take an enemy at his word get on with it already?

We are dealing with a fanatic and millenerian enemy, one that seeks death, is, in fact, in love with the concept of death on a massive scale. He seeks Paradise through his own death, and although this is hard for a Westerner to get his head around, he is NOT about the Here and the Now, he's about the Sweet By-and-By, the Hereafter. Temporal arrangements, like holding power in Iran or anywhere else is simply of no account whatsoever, except as a means to that end. They embrace death: their own, yours, mine, everybody else's, too.

You need to get ahold of that.

leib10
02 Mar 07,, 19:28
Yes, I'd say there's a very high chance that somebody, somewhere will employ nuclear weapons.

Dreadnought
02 Mar 07,, 20:24
I don't think you really 'get' the guys in Iran, then.

A-jad is the ideological descendent of Ayatollah Khomeini, so let's let HIM fill us in on how they see all that bad stuff that would happen to 'em if they busted a nuke:



Now, I know it is human nature to flinch when one looks in the face of Evil. But that's going to get us all killed. So, can the ones among us that simply don't have the sack for what's coming PLEASE stop hampering us with their attempts to re-assure themselves that our enemies don't really mean what they say, and let the rest of us that take an enemy at his word get on with it already?

We are dealing with a fanatic and millenerian enemy, one that seeks death, is, in fact, in love with the concept of death on a massive scale. He seeks Paradise through his own death, and although this is hard for a Westerner to get his head around, he is NOT about the Here and the Now, he's about the Sweet By-and-By, the Hereafter. Temporal arrangements, like holding power in Iran or anywhere else is simply of no account whatsoever, except as a means to that end. They embrace death: their own, yours, mine, everybody else's, too.

You need to get ahold of that.

Agreed Blues but we cant compare this man and this regime to a civilized nation. The people yes,their government and the way they govern not a chance. I think they will boot him before it comes to a head and some other crackpot will be put in place to see what will be next.

I fully agree with you about you observation though.

Can paradise be found on Mars? That is after he lands there via warp speed ?:biggrin:

Militarythinker
02 Mar 07,, 20:36
But that is what I am saying. It isn't going to be some civilized government that does it. Any human with a brain in their head knows the ramifications of launching. It is going to be some wack-job fanatic that sets it off and pisses everyone off.

Dreadnought
02 Mar 07,, 20:40
But that is what I am saying. It isn't going to be some civilized government that does it. Any human with a brain in their head knows the ramifications of launching. It is going to be some wack-job fanatic that sets it off and pisses everyone off.

Hopefully someone with common sense shoots the bastard first.;)

Bluesman
02 Mar 07,, 20:43
Agreed Blues but we cant compare this man and this regime to a civilized nation. The people yes,their government and the way they govern not a chance. I think they will boot him before it comes to a head and some other crackpot will be put in place to see what will be next.

I fully agree with you about you observation though.

Can paradise be found on Mars? That is after he lands there via warp speed ?:biggrin:

Yeah, BUT...they are just about to be a nuclear Power. I don't see anybody stopping it, and once they have it, they will, in a too-high probability, use it against their hated enemies, in order to bring on the long-awaited Final Battle, the end of which will result in a world-wide victory for Islam and Allah's reign on earth.

Remember, A-jad didn't just happen into his position. He clawed his way up from that day when he and the other 'students' went over the wall of the American Embassy. He was groomed, promoted, cossetted and elevated all along the way into the Big Chair, so don't think he's out there without any backing. He was SELECTED by the ayatollahs, and they know exactly who he is and what he's about. You know, the ayatollahs: the guys that WANT to end of the world to occur; the soulmates of the fella I quoted above.

The people of Iran do not get to vote on the course their government takes; their wishes are simply not a factor. So, expecting them to be any brake of the rush over the cliff to national suicide is a bad bet.

Bluesman
02 Mar 07,, 20:46
But that is what I am saying. It isn't going to be some civilized government that does it. Any human with a brain in their head knows the ramifications of launching. It is going to be some wack-job fanatic that sets it off and pisses everyone off.

It may as well BE a government, because the only way ANYbody gets a nuke is through a NATIOANL program.

Like Iran's. Or Pakistan's. Or North Korea's. (Or Libya's , or South Africa's, or Iraq's...all of which have been dealt with by the US, you're welcome very much, I'm sure.)

Bluesman
02 Mar 07,, 20:49
Hopefully someone with common sense shoots the bastard first.;)

Are you kidding? We can't even intercept phone calls from known aQ guys into the US, and you're talking about whacking somebody BEFORE they commit the most monstrous crime in history?

This is what I've been talking about: the idiots that want to whine about the mythical impingments on our civil liberties from the Patriot Act and the dumbasses that want to close Gitmo because it violates the Terrorist Bill of Rights are going to get us KILLED.:mad:

How do we shoot the guy when we're not even allowed to FIND him?

Dreadnought
02 Mar 07,, 21:22
Are you kidding? We can't even intercept phone calls from known aQ guys into the US, and you're talking about whacking somebody BEFORE they commit the most monstrous crime in history?

This is what I've been talking about: the idiots that want to whine about the mythical impingments on our civil liberties from the Patriot Act and the dumbasses that want to close Gitmo because it violates the Terrorist Bill of Rights are going to get us KILLED.:mad:

How do we shoot the guy when we're not even allowed to FIND him?

I agree Blues. They can tap my phone anytime they want/will. I have zero to hide and besides they know who I am anyways.:biggrin:

I would be the first to tell all those that want Gitmo closed to STFU. Fine if we close Gitmo then lets build one in "your" country. I have no problem with Gitmo because if you end up there then there is no question you are a danger to the U.S. or any other civilized country. Its not like you robbed the corner store and were put there. These people that are there didnt take us seriously when they did what they were arrested for. They portray Gitmo like Andersonville during the Civil War. Its very far from it and to be truthfull from what I have seen they live better then the people that say they don't. Go figure. You can never do enough to satisfy these people. Perhaps maybe a weekend stay at a Soviet gulag would change their outlook.Then they may know what real horrors are. Hell Gitmo is a five start hotel compared to them. I say F'em let em rot atleast we know where they are.;)

Zeng
07 Mar 07,, 01:00
Zeng,
There are many interpretations of China's No first use policy, specifically wrt India. General consensus has been its not applicable to India.
1. One view is that Chinas NFU does not apply on its own soil. China considers Taiwan and large part of Arunachal pradesh as its territory.
2. Another view is that NFU applies to NPT signatories, India is not a signatory.

Indian strategists and policy makers contend that Chinas NFU does not apply to India and India's minimum deterrence is decided accordingly.

kams,

The argument is clear now. From China’s point of view, China‘s No first use policy applies to India and any nations. I am sure it applies to Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh (Southern Tibet called in China) and non-NPT signatories.

But some Indians including Indian strategists and policy makers wanted to interpret it in a way that can justify Indian’s nuclear build up.

Bluesman
07 Mar 07,, 04:53
kams,

The argument is clear now. From China’s point of view, China‘s No first use policy applies to India and any nations. I am sure it applies to Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh (Southern Tibet called in China) and non-NPT signatories.

But some Indians including Indian strategists and policy makers wanted to interpret it in a way that can justify Indian’s nuclear build up.

China has a massive conventional force and not many nukes, which aren't all that accurate. OF COURSE they're going to have 'No First Use' policy. They'd want a 'No Use AT ALL' policy.

Reminds me of a joke:
A farmer had a bad rodent problem, and he was talking to his wife about getting a cat. The rats and mice overheard him, and came to him with a proposal: 'If YOU don't get a cat, WE won't get a cat.':redface:

Vinod2070
07 Mar 07,, 13:24
kams,

The argument is clear now. From China’s point of view, China‘s No first use policy applies to India and any nations. I am sure it applies to Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh (Southern Tibet called in China) and non-NPT signatories.

But some Indians including Indian strategists and policy makers wanted to interpret it in a way that can justify Indian’s nuclear build up.

Why should India need to justify her nuclear buildup. Least of all to the "official" nuclear states. China is basically trying to restrict India to South Asea and prevent her rise to the global stage. Hence the "higher than Himalaya" friendship with Pakistan and the building of naval bases in Myanmar.

China basically wants a multipolar world but a unipolar Asea. It indulges in the same hypocrisy that it accuses USA of with regard to itself.

zraver
07 Mar 07,, 20:36
Why should India need to justify her nuclear buildup. Least of all to the "official" nuclear states. China is basically trying to restrict India to South Asea and prevent her rise to the global stage. Hence the "higher than Himalaya" friendship with Pakistan and the building of naval bases in Myanmar.

China basically wants a multipolar world but a unipolar Asea. It indulges in the same hypocrisy that it accuses USA of with regard to itself.

That is very concise and as accurate as one of M-21's bullets.

Zeng
08 Mar 07,, 03:55
China has a massive conventional force and not many nukes, which aren't all that accurate. OF COURSE they're going to have 'No First Use' policy. They'd want a 'No Use AT ALL' policy.

Reminds me of a joke:
A farmer had a bad rodent problem, and he was talking to his wife about getting a cat. The rats and mice overheard him, and came to him with a proposal: 'If YOU don't get a cat, WE won't get a cat.':redface:

LOL. :tongue: Cat and Mouse Animation (http://www.artie.com/20030925/arg-katnmouse-bw.html) :tongue:

Zeng
08 Mar 07,, 03:59
Why should India need to justify her nuclear buildup. Least of all to the "official" nuclear states. China is basically trying to restrict India to South Asea and prevent her rise to the global stage. Hence the "higher than Himalaya" friendship with Pakistan and the building of naval bases in Myanmar.

China basically wants a multipolar world but a unipolar Asea. It indulges in the same hypocrisy that it accuses USA of with regard to itself.


If India doesn’t need to justify her nuclear buildup, why India distorted the interpretation of China’s No Fist Use Nuke policy?

You should not blame China for having a friend. You should try to become their friends too.

But India doesn’t bother to make friends with her miserable neighbors. India has all powerful countries and superpower in bed with her. India is the undisputed leader of non-alliance countries. India has much stronger navy with aircraft carriers. India has much more advanced fighter fleet. India has much more advanced armor divisions. All powerful countries compete to woo India with even more advanced stuffs. India itself is becoming the next global superpower.

On the other hand, all western countries have technologic and arms embargos on China. Russian sells less advanced weaponry to China.

China is in no position to restrict India to rise to the top of the global stage. China is in no position to accuse USA to be the unipolar superpower. It is the India that wants to be the another polar :)

Zeng
08 Mar 07,, 04:19
Why should India need to justify her nuclear buildup. Least of all to the "official" nuclear states. China is basically trying to restrict India to South Asea and prevent her rise to the global stage. Hence the "higher than Himalaya" friendship with Pakistan and the building of naval bases in Myanmar.

China basically wants a multipolar world but a unipolar Asea. It indulges in the same hypocrisy that it accuses USA of with regard to itself.


That is very concise and as accurate as one of M-21's bullets.


See, American went to Indian bed again :tongue:

Last time, the explosions of five Indian nuclear bombs waked American up from Indian bed before CIA even made the morning call :confused:

It will be interesting to see what will wake American up from Indian bed next time, surprise :eek:

xrough
08 Mar 07,, 07:22
Everybody wants to be in the frontline when it comes to global affairs that is the reality...but it depends on your resources to be there...and having a nuclear weapons is an edge...

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 14:17
If India doesn’t need to justify her nuclear buildup, why India distorted the interpretation of China’s No Fist Use Nuke policy?

I have never seen this in any of India's official statements. You can't take the comments in a forum to be India's official policy. I want to know why China went ballistic when India tested the nuclear weapons. Hasn't China done the same and proliferated to Pakistan?


You should not blame China for having a friend. You should try to become their friends too.

But India doesn’t bother to make friends with her miserable neighbors. India has all powerful countries and superpower in bed with her. India is the undisputed leader of non-alliance countries. India has much stronger navy with aircraft carriers. India has much more advanced fighter fleet. India has much more advanced armor divisions. All powerful countries compete to woo India with even more advanced stuffs. India itself is becoming the next global superpower.

India has absolutely no problem with your friendship with Paksitan. It is the proliferation and the arming of an unstable, dangerous regime that it does not like. It will be like India proliferating N. weapons to Taiwan. Also last time I checked, China's "official" defence budget was more than double of India.


On the other hand, all western countries have technologic and arms embargos on China. Russian sells less advanced weaponry to China.

China is in no position to restrict India to rise to the top of the global stage. China is in no position to accuse USA to be the unipolar superpower. It is the India that wants to be the another polar :)

Really. China is getting nuclear technology from USA. Getting all the latest weapons from Russia. This is not a problem for India. The issue is that China wants to stop the emergence of India and tries to contain it through arming unstable regimes. The only reason for Pakistan's belligerence with India is that it feels that China will back it.

I think China also has problems with all it's neighbors. Doesn't necessarily mean that China is always in the wrong. Same for India.

There is nothing wrong in India being a pole in a multi polar world with US, China, Russia, Japan, EU etc. More the poles the better. :)

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 14:39
See, American went to Indian bed again :tongue:

Last time, the explosions of five Indian nuclear bombs waked American up from Indian bed before CIA even made the morning call :confused:

It will be interesting to see what will wake American up from Indian bed next time, surprise :eek:

Not the best choice of language. huh. :biggrin:

The point is India does not owe an explaination to anyone for her nuclear weapons. It is necessary as it is in a dangerous neighborhood with three nuclear weapon powers and proliferation happening from China. India is a stabilizing factor in Asea and the world. A strong and powerful India is in the interest of the Asea and the world.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 16:40
I have never seen this in any of India's official statements. You can't take the comments in a forum to be India's official policy. I want to know why China went ballistic when India tested the nuclear weapons. Hasn't China done the same and proliferated to Pakistan?

Not sure what you read but Chinese reaction was rather muted. It was in line with the N5, all rejecting both India and Pakistan Nuclear Weapons States status.


India has absolutely no problem with your friendship with Paksitan.

You seriously are joking me!


It is the proliferation and the arming of an unstable, dangerous regime that it does not like. It will be like India proliferating N. weapons to Taiwan. Also last time I checked, China's "official" defence budget was more than double of India.

Except when viewed in the strategic context. If the Pakistani Army is viewed as a Chinese Army against India, then what do you think of the situation?


Really. China is getting nuclear technology from USA. Getting all the latest weapons from Russia. This is not a problem for India. The issue is that China wants to stop the emergence of India and tries to contain it through arming unstable regimes. The only reason for Pakistan's belligerence with India is that it feels that China will back it.

And both China and the US are quick to calm things down.

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 17:00
Not sure what you read but Chinese reaction was rather muted. It was in line with the N5, all rejecting both India and Pakistan Nuclear Weapons States status.

To Indians, it was sheer hypocrisy on the part of N5. There is no way a country of a billion people can be left to the non-existent mercies of her overt and covert enemies. Pakistan was already a nuclear weapon power. You seriously do not believe that they developed the weapons in those 5 days after India's explosions. They had already got a proven design and tech. from China and this was confirmed by US.

China was quite vehement in continuing the sanctions on India. I am talking about China in particular because the reaction of other N4 can be understandable from a colonial mindset which China has also suffered for long but now wanted to impose on India. Frankly US and China were the most vehement with others filling in. Of course I am not counting Australia and Sweden here :)


You seriously are joking me!
I don't think any one in India has a problem if the friendship is not so obviously directed against India. Where do you think all the Pakistani missiles are coming from? Who are they directed against?


Except when viewed in the strategic context. If the Pakistani Army is viewed as a Chinese Army against India, then what do you think of the situation?

Could you be a bit more clear here?


And both China and the US are quick to calm things down.
Who instigates the "things" in the first place?

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 17:15
To Indians, it was sheer hypocrisy on the part of N5. There is no way a country of a billion people can be left to the non-existent mercies of her overt and covert enemies.

Perhaps but they were all living up to the letter of the NPT which neither India nor Pakistan signed. After the tests, there were attempts by both parties to be declared as Nuclear Weapons States under the NPT. They were rejected out of hand.


Pakistan was already a nuclear weapon power. You seriously do not believe that they developed the weapons in those 5 days after India's explosions. They had already got a proven design and tech. from China and this was confirmed by US.

Except that those Pak nukes were duds. The Chinese proliferation were before the NPT. And the proof came from Lybia where Khan had sold Chinese blueprints to Khadafy and he showed them to the world.

This being said, Pak's pursuit of nukes came after 1974.


China was quite vehement in continuing the sanctions on India. I am talking about China in particular because the reaction of other N4 can be understandable from a colonial mindset which China has also suffered for long but now wanted to impose on India. Frankly US and China were the most vehement with others filling in. Of course I am not counting Australia and Sweden here :)

I'm not sure why you're including Australia and Sweden. They are not the N5 as part of the NPT. Be that as it may, the N5 lived up to the NPT regardless of what India or Pakistan felt.


I don't think any one in India has a problem if the friendship is not so obviously directed against India. Where do you think all the Pakistani missiles are coming from? Who are they directed against?

A result of the Cold War. China was extremely fearful of Soviet encirclement. She cannot afford a two front war, let alone a 3 front war. The majority of her army was facing the USSR. She went to war to pre-emptively take out Vietnam and Pakistan was used to break the Indian Front.


Could you be a bit more clear here?

Intent aside, could India take on China without taking out Pakistan 1st? And what kind of shape would India be after taking out Pakistan. To paraphrase Mao, Beijing is more than willing to fight India down to the last Pakistani.


Who instigates the "things" in the first place?

Pakistan obviously but note that both China and the US told Pakistan to back off even when they were taking body blow after body blow.

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 17:20
Not sure what you read but Chinese reaction was rather muted. It was in line with the N5, all rejecting both India and Pakistan Nuclear Weapons States status.

To quote the Indian prime minister at the time, "Nuclear Weapons State" is not a title that we seek from anyone outside. It is a status conferred on India by her Scientists and Engineers. This whole thing about Nuclear Weapons Status being granted by someone is so hypocritical. What the world needs to worry is the weapons going in unstable hands.

A major country like India in a dangerous neighborhood simply can not avoid having them if it is to survive and have an independent sovereign existence. So I feel it makes total sense for both China and India to have nuclear weapons for their self defence as long as any country in the world possesses them.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 17:24
Think you've misunderstood. Nuclear Weapons State is a legal status granted under the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty of which neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory. There were attempts to get them sign as a Nuclear Weapons States but that was rejected.

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 17:32
Perhaps but they were all living up to the letter of the NPT which neither India nor Pakistan signed. After the tests, there were attempts by both parties to be declared as Nuclear Weapons States under the NPT.

That's why we are coming from different places here. India can not accept the NPT which places her in a permanent disadvantageous position and renders her a second class nation for all time to come. This is no jingoism but the sad reality of our times.

For the N5 it is an article of faith. But even the N5 have shown no intention to disarm eventually which is one of the features of NPT.

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 17:34
Think you've misunderstood. Nuclear Weapons State is a legal status granted under the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty of which neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory. There were attempts to get them sign as a Nuclear Weapons States but that was rejected.

No sir I understand the legallese. It's just that India does not accept the discriminatory law itself.:eek:

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 17:41
That's why we are coming from different places here. India can not accept the NPT which places her in a permanent disadvantageous position and renders her a second class nation for all time to come. This is no jingoism but the sad reality of our times.

Canada was a nuclear weapons power and she gave up that status. Do you consider Canada a 2nd class nation?

Whatever India's view on the NPT, this does not relieve NPT signatories from living up to the Treaty at least by the letter of the Law, if not by spirit. This being said, India knew full well of the reaction and went ahead with the tests. India cannot complain about others living up to their committements to the NPT.


For the N5 it is an article of faith. But even the N5 have shown no intention to disarm eventually which is one of the features of NPT.

I can point to the various SALT and START treaties and SRF treaties as a sign that the N5 are disarming.


No sir I understand the legallese. It's just that India does not accept the discriminatory law itself.:eek:

The US-Indian nuke deal states otherwise.

subba
08 Mar 07,, 17:43
See, American went to Indian bed again

ROFL ! Zeng Sir you should go to the racism in US thread..and check out the bonhomie..:biggrin: :)

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 17:50
Canada was a nuclear weapons power and she gave up that status. Do you consider Canada a 2nd class nation?

Of course Canada is no second class nation. But is it a world power? Frankly there is no comparision between India and Canada because os the enormous difference in their size. Besides canada has the US to protect her. It is not living in a dangerous neighborhood.


Whatever India's view on the NPT, this does not relieve NPT signatories from living up to the Treaty at least by the letter of the Law, if not by spirit. This being said, India knew full well of the reaction and went ahead with the tests. India cannot complain about others living up to their committements to the NPT.

You are right. I was just pointing to the hypocricy of preaching to others what you do not practice.

"Do as I say. Not as I do."


I can point to the various SALT and START treaties and SRF treaties as a sign that the N5 are disarming.

Of course you know and I know it has nothing to do with eventual "disarming". It was just coming back from an unsustainable stockpile size which was no longer required.


The US-Indian nuke deal states otherwise.

More on the part of N5 than India. :)

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 18:06
Of course Canada is no second class nation. But is it a world power? Frankly there is no comparision between India and Canada because os the enormous difference in their size. Besides canada has the US to protect her. It is not living in a dangerous neighborhood.

Such comparisons are ludicrous. India is only strong within her neighborhood. Canada is far stronger militarily in Europe than India, China, Pakistan, Vietnam combined could ever be. A single Canadian battlegroup could kill every Chinese division that could come into Europe which would be ... zero.

Canada does not rely on the US for her protection. She relies on 3 oceans. Both Canada and the US are force projection powers, meaning that our military is geared towards expeditionary forces, not home defence.

Not trying to put down India but you have to be extremely careful when discussing these comparisons and state a proper baseline for comparison. The only baseline I used when I brought up Canada was the "2nd nation status" of a non-nuclear weapons power.


You are right. I was just pointing to the hypocricy of preaching to others what you do not practice.

"Do as I say. Not as I do."

Not sure what you mean. The NPT consists of alot more member states than just the N5. Are you saying the non-N5s NPT members are not living up to the treaty. After all, they were also punishing India and Pakistan as demanded by the NPT.


Of course you know and I know it has nothing to do with eventual "disarming". It was just coming back from an unsustainable stockpile size which was no longer required.

Perhaps but the evidence is there.


More on the part of N5 than India. :)

Frankly, looking at the Law Passed by the Congress and Senate, India might as well have signed the NPT.

subba
08 Mar 07,, 18:08
The US-Indian nuke deal states otherwise.

OOE sir, i don't think the deal is concluded. But it's outside NPT's ambit. The bilateral agreement will be the 123 agreement. The Hyde is being discussed but that is US law. Whats binding on India will only be the 123..that is if the deal goes through.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 18:13
The Hyde Act obligates the US to withdraw from the 123 Agreement in event of any breach of the Act and includes going back into India and ripping out equipment and taking books off shelves.

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 18:23
Such comparisons are ludicrous. India is only strong within her neighborhood. Canada is far stronger militarily in Europe than India, China, Pakistan, Vietnam combined could ever be. A single Canadian battlegroup could kill every Chinese division that could come into Europe which would be ... zero.

Canada does not rely on the US for her protection. She relies on 3 oceans. Both Canada and the US are force projection powers, meaning that our military is geared towards expeditionary forces, not home defence.

Not trying to put down India but you have to be extremely careful when discussing these comparisons and state a proper baseline for comparison. The only baseline I used when I brought up Canada was the "2nd nation status" of a non-nuclear weapons power.

While I may not agree with all you said here, frankly this comparision is not required here and is distracting from the thread. The discussion was about the Chinese reaction and her attitude to India.


Not sure what you mean. The NPT consists of alot more member states than just the N5. Are you saying the non-N5s NPT members are not living up to the treaty. After all, they were also punishing India and Pakistan as demanded by the NPT.

Isn't it obvious that this will be so? No point in arguing on it further.


Frankly, looking at the Law Passed by the Congress and Senate, India might as well have signed the NPT.

Good. We are both happy and all is well with the world. :)

subba
08 Mar 07,, 18:25
The Hyde Act obligates the US to withdraw from the 123 Agreement in event of any breach of the Act and includes going back into India and ripping out equipment and taking books off shelves.

Right i read it too that way. But the full civil cooperation agreement also brings into a contradiction within article 4 of th NPT wherein NPT member states by signing the treaty do not have 'entitlement' to nuclear tech and fuel necessarily. By bringing a special provision for India, the US is undermining signatories to the NPT.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 18:29
By bringing a special provision for India, the US is undermining signatories to the NPT.

Not exactly. India is a non-NPT signatory and what the US has done is to adhere to the NPT on behalf of India through US Laws.

I know I hate lawyers too.

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 18:29
The Hyde Act obligates the US to withdraw from the 123 Agreement in event of any breach of the Act and includes going back into India and ripping out equipment and taking books off shelves.

The US did not do that after 1998. So tough luck if you think it will happen now. India is no walkover anyway. :cool:

I do not see any sensible reason for things to come to such a pass. Doesn't suit US or India.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 18:37
The US did not do that after 1998. So tough luck if you think it will happen now. India is no walkover anyway. :cool:

Oh, the US will be able to do it - through India's Courts. Any commercial deal with the US will include in its contracts such provisions as to withdrawl of equipment, and knowledge. India may not be a walkover but India is also a nation of law.

kams
08 Mar 07,, 18:37
OOE sir, i don't think the deal is concluded. But it's outside NPT's ambit. The bilateral agreement will be the 123 agreement. The Hyde is being discussed but that is US law. Whats binding on India will only be the 123..that is if the deal goes through.

Its the deal with NSG, which will be binding. And Hyde act will be the basis for that deal b/w NSG and India.

1. We will not be allowed to reprocess the fuel.
2. Sanctions will follow if we test any nukes and the deal is off.
3. We will be allowed to import sufficient fuel to operate the reactors safetly, no stockpiling will be allowed.

This will be basic guidelines will apply, no matter from whom you buy the reactors.

subba
08 Mar 07,, 18:46
Not exactly. India is a non-NPT signatory and what the US has done is to adhere to the NPT on behalf of India through US Laws.

That was phrased so differently and well you almost got me there sir..:)

Yet i think it does violate the NPT in the sense it allows a non-NPT signatory full civil cooperation in addition to no power having the right to investigate strategic plants. Also India can build any number of nuclear plants and classify them accordingly. Military or civilian. Something NPT signatories that are not N5 don't have the liberty under the agreement. So it's not really the US adhering to the NPT on India's behalf. ;)

The problem coming in really is even not nuke testing but reprocessing/ reusing spent fuel for India's larger Thorium based initiative. For the nuke testing i think there is a 'supreme interest' clause which will be in the 123 agreement. (please correct me if am wrong here).

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 18:48
Oh, the US will be able to do it - through India's Courts. Any commercial deal with the US will include in its contracts such provisions as to withdrawl of equipment, and knowledge. India may not be a walkover but India is also a nation of law.

OK. I understood you wrong here. I thought you were talking about an invasion or something.

This makes sense.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 18:55
That was phrased so differently and well you almost got me there sir..:)

Not me but a couple of Captains from JAG who "tried" to explain it to me. As for the rest, let me pass it to them when we're meeting for Scotch later on today.

subba
08 Mar 07,, 19:05
Whambam sir..you and OOE Sir have crystallized things a bit in your discussion here. Pretty valid points well made by both of you made interesting reading. Yet i would put it that this act between US-India gives

1. India full civil cooperation.
2. The right to retain Nuclear weapons outside the NPT.
3. Build, operate nuclear plants solely for military purposes.

Provisions invoked will be on the basis of..

1. Nuclear tests.
2. Using spent fuel for plants outside the scope of IAEA. Which include our thorium based FBRs.

The only difference i see with N5 and India is the US reaction to India's nuclear tests. JUst don't test please clause in the Hyde act.

And makes India's path to maturing Thorium based reactors tougher without using spent fuel from safeguarded plants.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 07,, 19:09
Some items here.

How many nukes do we KNOW India got? And what is a definition of a nuke under the NPT? START II allows both the US and Russia 2000 warheads but both got over 10,000 in dis-assembled form and those definitions are not even found within the NPT.

kams
08 Mar 07,, 19:22
Oh, the US will be able to do it - through India's Courts. Any commercial deal with the US will include in its contracts such provisions as to withdrawl of equipment, and knowledge. India may not be a walkover but India is also a nation of law.

Well Sir, If you have to depend on Indian Judicial system, we will win, it will take forever to get a decision and we know from past history that sanctions will be lifted in 2-3 years any way.:)

Most likely the contracts will have a neutral arbitrator whose decision will be binding on both parties.

subba
08 Mar 07,, 19:27
How many nukes do we KNOW India got? And what is a definition of a nuke under the NPT? START II allows both the US and Russia 2000 warheads but both got over 10,000 in dis-assembled form and those definitions are not even found within the NPT.

Part 1 of your question Sir..,

A) I think zero active. Warheads i doubt are mated and kept. I could be dead wrong though again.

B) The number of warheads that could be readily mated to warheads in case of conflict? Dunno again.

C) The number of warheads around 250Kt, 95 vintage 3 stage devices that could be made from potential pu stocks assuming 3 kg per weapon..hard call again sir, but some sources say India has access to around 2500 kg of WGP.

Part 2 of the def of a nuke under the NPT..

Only N5 allowed. No one else. :biggrin:

The NPT contains a provision granting the right to all parties to the treaty to develop, research, produce, and use nuclear energy under article 4. The presence of this provision quite properly raises questions about whether the central purpose of the NPT, which is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the five nuclear powers acknowledged by the treaty is undermined. Which it evidently is..

Just my take.

kams
08 Mar 07,, 19:28
And makes India's path to maturing Thorium based reactors tougher without using spent fuel from safeguarded plants.

Subba, will the position any worse if we don't have the agreement? Right now we have to do with what Plutonium our non-safeguarded reactors produce. After the agreement , situation will remain same. We would have preferred a better agreement where we are allowed to process spent fuel.

NPT also prohibits 'Nuclear explosive device' aka 'Smiling Budha'

subba
08 Mar 07,, 20:17
Subba, will the position any worse if we don't have the agreement? Right now we have to do with what Plutonium our non-safeguarded reactors produce. After the agreement , situation will remain same. We would have preferred a better agreement where we are allowed to process spent fuel.

NPT also prohibits 'Nuclear explosive device' aka 'Smiling Budha'

I think the problem is more with the shifting goalposts from the 2006 agreement. If we knew the original goal posts would be shifted to positions that go with the Hyde act today , i doubt India would have bothered about an agreement.

Thats why i was asking the other thread what sort of investment does India require to commercialize fully just 1 thorium based FBR say in the next 6-7 years. To raise it from a 220MW to 1600MW plant in 6-7 years will require a wartime like effort and investment. But it can be done. The disgusting thing is it looks this govt does'nt have the gonads.

kams
08 Mar 07,, 20:45
Thats why i was asking the other thread what sort of investment does India require to commercialize fully just 1 thorium based FBR say in the next 6-7 years. To raise it from a 220MW to 1600MW plant in 6-7 years will require a wartime like effort and investment. But it can be done. The disgusting thing is it looks this govt does'nt have the gonads.

Hmm more than investment it is the technology. We still don't make large nuclear reactors, not due to lack of investment. Only 1000 MW reactors being built are Russian. Thats one reason we need the technology.

Regarding no. of nuclear weapons we have, Ashley Tellis has a paper estimating them based on Plutonium output. Will try to find it later.

Vinod2070
08 Mar 07,, 20:54
Absolute numbers don't really matter. It's good if there is no clear answer to that. :) We need them for deterrence and not for use. So a bit of obfuscation and amguity doesn't harm.

subba
08 Mar 07,, 21:04
Kams sir the problem are scalability issues than technological. India makes perfectly good and safe 600 MW reactors. We know how the Govt has been doling out funds. Well do a 500 MW plant, meanwhile make a deal for a 1000MW russian reactor. So while available funds go to Russia, Indian scientists end proving tech capability in lesser capacity models. Get up the funding these scalability issues will vanish. Thats why i asked how much are we prepared to say BLOW to get a 1000MW thorium based power reactor up and running by say 2014. 5 billion US max? If so just give the scientists a go ahead. India is being in a way put on the burner just coz we don't have Uranium reserves. The issues are not technological.

subba
08 Mar 07,, 21:30
Ok here goes an estimate of the number of nukes..plus i was wrong on the mating warheads. As per a statement previously by the JS, i think the Agni 2 warheads are kept mated after 2002 op parikrama.

http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf

This in addition to get details of warhead capabilities..

Agni [Strategic Ballistic Missile] (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Agni.html)

Officer of Engineers
09 Mar 07,, 01:39
Part 1 of your question Sir..,

A) I think zero active. Warheads i doubt are mated and kept. I could be dead wrong though again.

B) The number of warheads that could be readily mated to warheads in case of conflict? Dunno again.

C) The number of warheads around 250Kt, 95 vintage 3 stage devices that could be made from potential pu stocks assuming 3 kg per weapon..hard call again sir, but some sources say India has access to around 2500 kg of WGP.

Then by START II definitions, India does not have any nuclear weapons.

subba
09 Mar 07,, 10:10
Then by START II definitions, India does not have any nuclear weapons.

Great..so can we claim the moral high ground too..:biggrin: :)

cape_royds
10 Mar 07,, 01:46
I don't think you really 'get' the guys in Iran, then.

A-jad is the ideological descendent of Ayatollah Khomeini, so let's let HIM fill us in on how they see all that bad stuff that would happen to 'em if they busted a nuke:



Now, I know it is human nature to flinch when one looks in the face of Evil. But that's going to get us all killed. So, can the ones among us that simply don't have the sack for what's coming PLEASE stop hampering us with their attempts to re-assure themselves that our enemies don't really mean what they say, and let the rest of us that take an enemy at his word get on with it already?

We are dealing with a fanatic and millenerian enemy, one that seeks death, is, in fact, in love with the concept of death on a massive scale. He seeks Paradise through his own death, and although this is hard for a Westerner to get his head around, he is NOT about the Here and the Now, he's about the Sweet By-and-By, the Hereafter. Temporal arrangements, like holding power in Iran or anywhere else is simply of no account whatsoever, except as a means to that end. They embrace death: their own, yours, mine, everybody else's, too.

You need to get ahold of that.


Bluesman, I think events have proven you wrong.

The theocratic regime has been in place in Iran for over a quarter of a century, and they simply haven't started any wars. The only significant conflict they've been involved in was when they were invaded by Iraq.

Now people point to the fact that Iran often used "human wave" tactics during that war as proof somehow that the Iranians are mindless fanatics. But those tactics came out of necessity--Iran lacked spares for its American-made weapons, most of their worldwide assets were frozen, they could only buy arms on the world market using hard cash, and they had limited credit in world financial markets. (None of this is surprising, mind you, since a revolutionary government doesn't exactly get a triple-A rating from Moody's!)

So especially as the war went on, the Iranians had to husband their best-equipped formations, and make increasing use of the main resources they had available, manpower and willpower--with grievous results.

Therefore, even their "fanatical" tactics had a rational strategic basis.

Indeed, Iran's behaviour as a state has conformed to most of the parameters of rational power-politics.

If they were truly death-seeking, they've had plenty of opportunities to get themselves wiped out by starting wars. They could start a war with Israel, the USA, or Russia any time they like! If all that mattered to them was spiritual purity, why haven't they gone to war already?

Answer: they measure the correlation of forces and seek to optimize the rewards for their risks. They don't want to risk destruction in exchange for a negligible result.

However, risk/reward thinking is the hallmark of a rational power-political actor. The Iranians, even under the mullahs, measure risk and reward, and are quite deterrable.

But Iran hasn't even exploited opportunities for lower-risk aggression. Note that Iran stayed out of the Caucasus and trans-Caspia during the unsettled 1990's despite the fact that they have significant national interests in the region, and despite the fact that Russia was very weak at the time. Iran was also more or less hands-off with regard to Afghanistan, which was geopolitically a vaccuum during the 90's. Nor did Iran even try to settle any old scores with a battered and blockaded Iraq.

Now Iran has certainly been involved in a proxy war in Lebanon. But please tell me which country in the Middle East has not been involved in a proxy war in Lebanon!

The very fact that Iran today seeks nuclear weapons indicates the degree to which they respect temporal, worldly power.

Is it out of line for Iran to want nukes? Is this just something a mullah got from a dream?

Not really: even the Shah sought nukes.

Moreover, look at Iran's region. They have three nuclear-armed neighbours or near-neighbours: Russia, Israel, and Pakistan.

All three of those countries have a well-known track record of starting wars. All three of those countries have suffered recent political instability. Russia in particular has openly invaded Iran twice in the past century.

The USA and the UK, imperial powers from outside the region, have each openly invaded Iran once in the past century. The USA and UK have also has invaded Iran's neighbours and maintain strong bases nearby.

This is not to count all the various covert shananigans which I will dismiss as the small change of power-politics. One Mossadegh more or less is no big deal, right?

Let me ask you, then, what rational government, under these current conditions and with this history, would not seek to acquire a nuclear deterrent?

A nuclear deterrent would enable Iran to reduce conventional military expenditure and would release labour resources. Did you know that Iran's population growth is slowing and in a few decades, Iran might be the "greyest" country in the Middle East? Reducing the size of the conventional armed forces makes good sense for Iran.

Nuclear electricity generation would free valuable petroleum resources for export, which would gain more hard currency for capital formation and investment.

Given the rising value of the petroleum resource, it makes sense to deter those who might be tempted to steal it rather than buy it. When you own something that valuable, you'd have to be as stupid as a Canadian to not prepare to defend it!

There's nothing "irrational" about Iran wanting nuclear power and nuclear weapons. You may like their policy, or you may dislike it, but you just cannot call that policy irrational.

That brings me to a final question: what about Ahemdinejad's heated rhetoric? After all, no one can listen to the Iranian president without misgivings.

A few points here:

1. Under Iran's constitution, the President does not control the armed forces. This is unusual in republics, and most people don't know that Iran is different in this way. Ahmedinejad doesn't have a finger on the button.

2. (a) The Iranians know quite well that the USA, other Western powers and Israel will never, under any circumstances, want to see Iran have nukes. It doesn't matter if Iran sent them all flowers, candies, and kisses. Even a bunch of free oil probably wouldn't change their minds. The West will be hostile no matter what, so there's not much to lose by grating on their nerves.

(b) Meanwhile, by seeming to antagonize Israel and the USA and defy the West, Iran can assuage Arab public opinion about Iranian nuclear weapons. (Of course, pro-Western governments in Egypt, KSA, etc. will oppose Iranian nukes, but their publics don't agree with them. Check out page 57 of this link: http://brookings.edu/views/speeches/telhami20070208.pdf).

By antagonizing the West, by threatening Israel, and by running the obvious risk of attack from the USA, the Iranians gain credibility in the eyes of the Arabs, as if to say "our nuclear weapons are to protect all of us from outside intervention, and to put pressure on the Zionists."

After all, why else would Arabs tolerate Iranians having nukes?

So Ahmedinejad's threats aren't meant to scare Israelis or influence people in the West. They're directed at a different audience altogether. And it's a line of diplomacy that makes quite a bit of sense.

3. Finally, nuclear deterrence is a funny thing. On the one hand, it's as rational as deterrence can ever get--games theoried and formularized to the max. On the other hand, it also comes down to plain old-fashioned nerves.

Nixon called it the "madman theory." Your prospective adversary must be convinced that you're just a little bit nuts, to hone the nuclear sword to its final edge. Your enemy needs to have the certainty that there is a final limit, and the uncertainty of where exactly that edge lies.

It's also politically very useful to have slavering dogs like Curtis LeMay straining at the leash, for example. They scare the hell out of everybody by saying extreme things. Of course, you keep them away from the big red button, but you don't have to tell your enemies that!

Even things like Ronald Reagan's seeming gaffe, "we start bombing in a few minutes," is all part of the game.

I think Ahmedinejad is part of the game. A rational game. The game of power-politics.

ExNavyAmerican
10 Mar 07,, 03:33
I voted yes. It is inevitable.

Blademaster
10 Mar 07,, 11:43
I know I hate lawyers too.

Does that mean you gonna hate me? :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
10 Mar 07,, 15:37
Oh I won't hate you for being a lawyer but being a smart-asss?

Zinja
09 Aug 07,, 23:05
Nuclear use in the next 30yrs? Very less likely. Whilst many theorise use by terrorists, there is far too much at stake for their use. No terrorist can pull a nuclear attack without emerse backing of a nuclear producing country, the technology required demands so. And that backing can not be hid because a nuclear detonation leaves a signature in its residue which can be traced to where the nuclear material came from. The supplying nation can be sure to kiss its race good bye in retaliatory strikes (asuming the attack will be to a nuclear power). No 'it's not me, it's the terrorist' can save them. For this reason not even Pak or Iran(if they will have nuclear weapons) would take this risky path.

Will nuclear weapons ever be used? My prediction is a definate 'Yes', but not in the next 30 years, and i would even say not even in the next century. Their best use any time soon would probably be de-bunking Small Tactical Weaponry, nothing major.