Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear fallout: A historical wrong undone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nuclear fallout: A historical wrong undone

    Nuclear fallout: A historical wrong undone

    Pallava Bagla
    Science Editor
    Tuesday, July,31 2007 (New Delhi)
    Deal or no deal is the big nuclear question?

    Even as that million dollar question gets its 'final review' in the corridors of power in New Delhi and Washington DC, what is evident is that a huge historical wrong done against India has already been undone, a wrong that pushed India into the nuclear dog house, a global mistake that made India into a nuclear pariah.

    The way things are unfolding, it may be sooner rather than later that India's unsolicited nuclear winter may be ending.

    To India's huge dislike, the developed world literally ganged up to create artificial barriers that impeded the transfer of sensitive high technology that India needed so much for its development. These regressive systems were created in the garb of stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    Thanks to the new atomic tango between the world's oldest and largest democracies, these technology denial regimes targetted at India may well be a thing of the past. India is finally getting a place on the high table, a stool at least if not a high chair.

    The dice got heavily loaded against India ever since the country refused to sign what it called 'the flawed' Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which had set an artificial date of January 1, 1967 as having been the date by which any country that had exploded a nuclear device, got a nuclear weapons status.

    The USA, Russia, France, Great Britain and China - the P-5 - got in and then made all efforts to ensure their hegemony is never broken.

    The first country outside this holy NPT framework to explode a nuclear device was India, when in the summer of 1974, the sands below Pokharan shook resoundingly, loudly proclaiming to the world the arrival of a new nuclear kid on the block.

    Ever since, all hell broke loose and all kinds of sanctions, technology transfer restrictions were clamped on India, so much so that Indian space and nuclear facilities had to overcome mountains of Red Tape even to import common pins. With India being literally outlawed from the global nuclear community, the common man on the street was denied the fruits of this technology.

    A global cartel called the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), now a group of 45 countries, was created essentially to box India into a corner and by its own admission 'the NSG was created following the explosion in 1974 of a nuclear device by a non-nuclear-weapon state, which demonstrated that nuclear technology transferred for peaceful purposes could be misused'.

    Much to India's distaste, it became a nuclear untouchable and several unrelated civilian sectors had to pay a heavy price as well.

    Fuel and spare part supplies for India's nuclear reactors were suddenly stopped, so much so that at times it became hazardous to keep the Tarapur nuclear power rectors running. In the eighties, India was denied the permission to import a Cray Super Computer for its weather forecasting needs and the reason given was that it could be used to design atom bombs.

    Later, the country was denied technology to manufacture Cryogenic engines needed to hoist communication satellites using locally made rockets. The list is endless.

    Higher and higher barriers were being placed around India merely to contain the development of the high-technology sectors in India. It is a different matter that the more the technology was denied to India, the more determined did the Indian scientists get, also ably supported by the Indian government, to overcome these embargos.

    The embargoes were overcome not by flouting them or by buying stuff from the so called 'nuclear Wall Mart', but by sheer dint of hard work, whatever was denied has been slowly built locally.

    Sanctions only delayed the development of these technologies; they did not scuttle whole projects. India is the only country where the American sanctions regime produced only the opposite results for which it was put in place. As an analogy, when fish was denied to the country, in retaliation India mastered fishing, thwarting the very purpose of these actions.

    The restrictive regimes became overbearing when in 1998 the sand dunes of Pokhran were emblazoned once again with the sound and fury of another five nuclear weapons tests. Not being coy like last time when the country had dubbed the test as a 'peaceful nuclear explosion', in 1998, India aptly declared itself a 'nuclear weapons state'.

    To recall the words of the then US President Bill Clinton who exclaimed "we will fall on them [India] like a ton of bricks", the sanctions regime became very strict with 'presumption of denial' being the guiding principle for every request for sourcing simple spare parts like computer chips and chemicals.

    The heat was faced even by Indian scientists; several were summarily suspended from American laboratories. Such was the viciousness that leading nuclear scientist Dr R Chidambaram, today the principal scientific advisor to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, was denied a visa to visit USA to attend a scientific meeting.

    That India continued its steady tortoise paced but determined plod on the high technology highway and then also had reasonably impressive results to show is one of the reasons that so called 'nuclear hares' of the world decided to once and for all dismantle these artificial walls on their own. The US-India Civil Nuclear Co-operation Initiative is one such concrete step in that direction.

    Four decades of nuclear winter is more or less over for India, and it seems the breakthrough came about not really having lost an inch of ground. The country still seems to have retained the same high moral ground on which it had rejected the NPT, and is now being accommodated within the non-proliferation umbrella while retaining the nuclear weapons. That in the last 60 years, India never broke any international norms, or violated any global treaties only helped matters.

    Once this landmark nuclear deal is inked, the floodgates to nuclear commerce with India will be opened since as External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukerjee told the Lok Sabha last winter, "Our current estimates envisage nuclear power generation of 30,000 MWe by 2022 and 63,000 MWe by 2032", which translates to India seeking to invest at least $100 billion in this infrastructure sector alone in the next 25 years.

    It seems this giant pot of gold was large enough an attraction for the countries to remove the several hurdles, iron out the wrinkles so that trade in high technology could begin once again with India.

    Much to India's delight, the very same country that spearheaded the moves to establish these obstacles is today at the forefront of dismantling them. The world indeed has come full circle and a grave historical wrong has been undone, whether the deal gets consummated or not.
    NDTV.com:

    a good read...
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

  • #2
    It's coming at the NPT from the wrong angle though - that was AIUI a case of the small countries ganging up on the big ones to limit the number with nuclear weapons, rather than as this article portrays it a conspiracy by the big countries to make sure only they had nuclear weapons.

    The article also assumes that countries have an automatic right to buy whatever they want from whoever they want, no matter whether or not anybody wants to sell to them. Again, rather flawed reasoning.
    Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
    Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
      It's coming at the NPT from the wrong angle though - that was AIUI a case of the small countries ganging up on the big ones to limit the number with nuclear weapons, rather than as this article portrays it a conspiracy by the big countries to make sure only they had nuclear weapons.
      Though it still goes the other way aswell, does it not? The P5 maintained their status as the only nuclear weapon weilding states and the rest were not allowed to achieve same status. I could be wrong but I don't see the inaccuracy in pointing that out. Maybe by viewpoint is flawed? I do not know. pdf, your insight here is welcome.
      Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
      -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

      Comment


      • #4
        The basic deal is that the P5 kept their weapons but stopped the arms race, were not permitted to help their allies develop nuclear weapons, and had to provide civil nuclear technology to those non-nuclear weapons states who signed the NPT. I'd say that helped the non-nuclear weapons states more than the P5, particularly as a small arsenal of nuclear weapons is generally a bad thing to have (that's why South Africa destroyed their nuclear deterrent shortly after getting it - well part of the reason anyway).

        I really do suggest you read the NPT - it's surprisingly short (1 side of A4 or so) - and gives you a far clearer understanding of what's going on than any number of news articles will.
        Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
        Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
          The basic deal is that the P5 kept their weapons but stopped the arms race, were not permitted to help their allies develop nuclear weapons, and had to provide civil nuclear technology to those non-nuclear weapons states who signed the NPT. I'd say that helped the non-nuclear weapons states more than the P5, particularly as a small arsenal of nuclear weapons is generally a bad thing to have (that's why South Africa destroyed their nuclear deterrent shortly after getting it - well part of the reason anyway).

          I really do suggest you read the NPT - it's surprisingly short (1 side of A4 or so) - and gives you a far clearer understanding of what's going on than any number of news articles will.
          But you have to remember that by the time NPT came into effect, the P5 didn't have small arsenal of weapons. They had and still have nukes numbering in the hundreds and thousands. It would be another thing if the P5 themselves dis-armed and then made sure that no one else armed themselves either. But to keep your nukes and not allow anyone else to possess them, that is indeed a one sided treaty. Also, you are wrong to judge that they were not allowed to help their allies make weapons. You are dis-regarding the neutral nations who still have their own security interests at hand and weren't in the camp of any one of the big powers.

          And South Africa built their weapons after the NPT, and it is very costly to maintain nuclear facilities and weapons. Facing heavy sanctions and escalating costs, it is understandable why South Africa would choose to dis-arm.
          Last edited by Tronic; 02 Aug 07,, 13:40.
          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tronic View Post
            It would be another thing if the P5 themselves dis-armed and then made sure that no one else armed themselves either. But to keep your nukes and not allow anyone else to possess them, that is indeed a one sided treaty. Also, you are wrong to judge that they were not allowed to help their allies make weapons. You are dis-regarding the neutral nations who still have their own security interests at hand and weren't in the camp of any one of the big powers.
            No, I'm not - it was these very neutral nations (ISTR it was Finland and Ireland, but I could be wrong on that one) who first got the ball rolling with the treaty, and it found far more general support among the non-nuclear-weapons states than it ever did among the nuclear weapons states.

            Originally posted by Tronic View Post
            And South Africa built their weapons after the NPT, and it is very costly to maintain nuclear facilities and weapons. Facing heavy sanctions and escalating costs, it is understandable why South Africa would choose to dis-arm.
            They got rid of it because they had time to think it through and could get away with destroying it before anybody publicly knew they had it. It was developed in response to a very specific threat - large armies coming over their northern border - and as soon as that threat went away it became a liability. Not a budgetary one either, but a dirty great big this-could-destroy-my-country-if-it-all-goes-****-up kind if liability. If you are a non-nuclear-weapons state your country may be invaded and occupied, but it will never be destroyed. If you have nuclear weapons, you will never be invaded (you will use yours to destroy any invasion) but your country will be destroyed if you push things too far.
            The result of this is that you have to be VERY careful when you are a nuclear weapons state, particularly in your realtions with other such states. Particularly worth noting here is how Chinese foreign policy changed radically as soon as they got nuclear weapons. Prior to this point, they were homicidally agressive in spreading Communism about, and preached nonsense about how they couldn't be bombed out of existence as they would breed replacements too fast. Once they got nuclear weapons they were very, very quiet and well behaved, as they suddenly realised what might happen to them if they pushed too far.
            Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
            Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

            Comment


            • #7
              you guys are way over my head... but can I throw out a question?
              what about if treaties are put in the closet and Pak sells babur missiles to AQ on the black market?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sectionOne View Post
                what about if treaties are put in the closet and Pak sells babur missiles to AQ on the black market?
                Not a lot - they're very large, very obvious targets that probably need a large amount of preventive maintenence to have a chance of hitting anything. The chances of them getting out of the country with a conventionally equipped version is very, very small (about the only options are either by sea, which requires a major port, or into Afghanistan where NATO would get it inside a week) while the chances of them getting a nuclear version are zero.
                Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
                Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
                  Not a lot - they're very large, very obvious targets that probably need a large amount of preventive maintenence to have a chance of hitting anything. The chances of them getting out of the country with a conventionally equipped version is very, very small (about the only options are either by sea, which requires a major port, or into Afghanistan where NATO would get it inside a week) while the chances of them getting a nuclear version are zero.
                  to be used within Pak by AQ? no movement necessary. possible?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by sectionOne View Post
                    to be used within Pak by AQ? no movement necessary. possible?
                    No way. The Pakistani government would realise they were missing in no time at all and find them even faster. About the only chance they've got is some kind of commando raid on the missiles followed by an immediate launch. They might have a chance with conventional ones, but not a hope with the nuclear variants.
                    Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
                    Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
                      No, I'm not - it was these very neutral nations (ISTR it was Finland and Ireland, but I could be wrong on that one) who first got the ball rolling with the treaty, and it found far more general support among the non-nuclear-weapons states than it ever did among the nuclear weapons states.
                      ISTR = what?

                      And yes, you are right that the treaty was proposed by the Irish, but it is today being run by the P5. According to the original treaty, all nations are suppose to move towards disarmnament of their nuclear weapons. The P5 haven't been very active indoing that, and that is why other neutral nations weren't too happy about it. That is one of the reasons why India started work on its own nuclear program, to break that global dominance of a selected few who gave themselves the privelage of nuclear weapons meanwhile restricting others from doing so. And yes, some states supported it, but every nation has its own ambitions.

                      They got rid of it because they had time to think it through and could get away with destroying it before anybody publicly knew they had it. It was developed in response to a very specific threat - large armies coming over their northern border - and as soon as that threat went away it became a liability. Not a budgetary one either, but a dirty great big this-could-destroy-my-country-if-it-all-goes-****-up kind if liability. If you are a non-nuclear-weapons state your country may be invaded and occupied, but it will never be destroyed. If you have nuclear weapons, you will never be invaded (you will use yours to destroy any invasion) but your country will be destroyed if you push things too far.
                      The result of this is that you have to be VERY careful when you are a nuclear weapons state, particularly in your realtions with other such states. Particularly worth noting here is how Chinese foreign policy changed radically as soon as they got nuclear weapons. Prior to this point, they were homicidally agressive in spreading Communism about, and preached nonsense about how they couldn't be bombed out of existence as they would breed replacements too fast. Once they got nuclear weapons they were very, very quiet and well behaved, as they suddenly realised what might happen to them if they pushed too far.
                      In other words MAD. And yes the threat is there but nuclear weapons have usually tended to keep that MAD theory ingrained and hence be actually a cause for non-aggression. A country without nukes can be invaded and occupied, yes, as you said. However, a country with nukes, has that extra deterrent and any aggressor thinks twice before invading such nations since having nukes pointed towards you is not a very pleasant position to be in! So, I don't completely agree with your viewpoint that having nukes means your country will be wiped out. Any nation with the desire to use nukes will nuke any nation, regardless of the fact if their opponents are nuclear or not. US-Japan an example. The attitude of the Chinese, I cannot say, they could've stayed quite for numerous reasons, one of them we can see already, to quitely grow economy and massively expand the conventional forces. The Chinese are getting back to the old game already, so I don't think that it is nukes alone that kept them quite. The closest I have got into Chinese mindset regarding their external issues is probably by reading Sun Tzu's Art of War, and I think their quite growth had very little to do with fear of nukes and more to do with massive yet quite conventional build-up.
                      Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                      -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
                        No way. The Pakistani government would realise they were missing in no time at all and find them even faster. About the only chance they've got is some kind of commando raid on the missiles followed by an immediate launch. They might have a chance with conventional ones, but not a hope with the nuclear variants.
                        so you think they dont' have connections?
                        wow. we are doomed.
                        guess it's time to increase capacity.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by sectionOne View Post
                          so you think they dont' have connections?
                          wow. we are doomed.
                          guess it's time to increase capacity.
                          Excuse me! Who the hell are you? You obviously have NOT even followed the open source intel on this matter! Pak nukes are kept in component form. Even if AQ has an inside source to those nukes, they will need at least 3 release authorities if not more. In fact, you are not what you claim to be. Good bye.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            In fact, you are not what you claim to be.

                            Sir, what did he claim to be??

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kansas Bear View Post
                              Sir, what did he claim to be??
                              Check his profile - occupation was "counterterrorism".

                              Tronic: ISTR = I Seem To Recall
                              Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
                              Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X