PDA

View Full Version : India joins nuclear club, gets NSG waiver



Pages : [1] 2

The One
06 Sep 08,, 12:05
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: INDIA JOINS NUCLEAR CLUB, GETS NSG WAIVER (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064307)

India joins nuclear club, gets NSG waiver

NDTV Correspondent

Saturday, September 06, 2008, (New Delhi, Vienna)

There's good news coming in from Vienna, Indo-US nuclear deal has finally crossed the NSG hurdle.

Earlier, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and National Security Advisor Shicshankar Menon in New Delhi after two days of talks failed to break a deadlock in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group over granting a clean waiver to India.

On Saturday, NSG members are expected to reconvene in Vienna again after two rounds of talks failed to yield any result. On Friday, the group ended 17 hours of negotiations without a decision.

Sources have told NDTV that the Americans were holding talks in separate rooms with the hold out countries.

On Friday, Pranab Mukherjee had issued fresh statement on India's commitment to non-proliferation.

Sources have told NDTV that no revised draft has been prepared yet but the amendments proposed by problem countries are 'killer amendments', like on testing.

The Prime Minister himself is monitoring every move in Vienna, but he is not getting involved directly in the talk process. As per sources, the Prime Minister's Office expects the Americans to persuade the dissenting countries.

SOURCE:- NSG MEET APPROVES N-WAIVER FOR INDIA (http://www.ibnlive.com/news/nsg-meet-approves-nwaiver-for-india/73011-3.html)

NSG MEET APPROVES N-WAIVER FOR INDIA

CNN-IBN

TimePublished on Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 15:57, Updated on Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 16:23 in Nation section

Vienna/New Delhi: The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has approved a US plan to engage in nuclear trade with India. Following the green signal by the NSG that will cement the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal, India has finally come out of the 34-year old nuclear apartheid.

The approval came after almost three days of meeting in Vienna on Saturday. The NSG meet was called to minimise any damage to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which India has not joined.

The consensus was arrived after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria, Ireland and New Zealand.

National Security Advisor MK Narayanan confirmed to CNN-IBN that waiver has been clinched in Vienna.

However, the nuclear deal still needs to be ratified by the US Congress before it could take force. The Congress must act before adjourning in late September for US Presidential elections.

If that does not happen then the deal could be left to an uncertain fate under a new US administration that takes office next year.

Former Indian foreign secretary and former ambassador to the US, Lalit Mansingh hailed it as a major victory for India.

"It's a significant victory for India and a milestone in nuclear equity. India did the right thing by standing firm and highlighting its red lines. Now 34 years of nuclear apartheid is finally over. But there is still one more hurdle to overcome which is the US congress. If this were a marathon, I would day we have won the silver medal. We’ll hopefully win the gold medal by the end of this year," Mansingh said.

martinmystry
06 Sep 08,, 13:12
I hope INDIA will get the latest re-processing technology now that it gets the
waiver and also it's diplomatic clout has increased

The One
06 Sep 08,, 13:18
Most difficult part is yet to come.It would be more difficult to pass this agreement in our own Parliament.

Whill
06 Sep 08,, 13:31
Most difficult part is yet to come.It would be more difficult to pass this agreement in our own Parliament.


It does not matter. Getting NSG waiver is tremendous achievement.This would not have been possible with out strong US support.

The One
06 Sep 08,, 13:40
This would not have been possible with out strong US support.

Correct!!!!!

Deltacamelately
06 Sep 08,, 15:14
The Senate. Watchout. They need contionuos 30 working days, Bush has time till 26th Sept. The Hyde Act has its own tantrums.

antimony
06 Sep 08,, 16:57
Seems like a Woo-Hoo momentt

Ray
06 Sep 08,, 18:37
One has to wait for the Agreement and read the fine print!

bengalraider
06 Sep 08,, 18:52
Seems like a Woo-Hoo momentt

i concur


WHOO HOO:biggrin::biggrin:



*still keeping my fingers crossed though:)

safin
07 Sep 08,, 05:22
The Senate. Watchout. They need contionuos 30 working days, Bush has time till 26th Sept. The Hyde Act has its own tantrums.
Since the total session period is only 15 days this time, so either we will see a lame duck session or someone proposing an exception in the current session for the 30 business day sit in period.
If i am not mistaken Nancy Pelosi has said before that she is not in favour of a lame duck session. As it is if the democrats romp home in the elections, they might well wait for their turn to take matters up.

zraver
07 Sep 08,, 05:37
It does not matter. Getting NSG waiver is tremendous achievement.This would not have been possible with out strong US support.

it's also going to have very long term effects. With this waiver India becomes the only (semi-offically) NWS not on the UNSC. China will fight it, but eventually she will let India in when the UK/Fr seats eventually merge as a single EU seat.

Mohan
07 Sep 08,, 05:54
Beijing ‘disappoints’ Delhi
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: China almost spoilt India’s party. That will remain the lasting memory of Beijing’s strategic miscalculation in opposing India’s waiver at the NSG meeting.
In Delhi, National Security Adviser MK Narayanan expressed disappointment. “The Chinese foreign minister will come here and we will, of course, express disappointment. We will say that we did not expect this,’’ Narayanan told Times Now. He added that India was surprised at China’s behaviour because President Hu Jintao and PM Wen Jiabao had assured Manmohan Singh Beijing would play a constructive role.
But Narayanan remained philosophical. “We can’t choose our neighbours. We have China and Pakistan and we desire the best of relations with both”.
But it was a sign the Chinese whispers in Vienna could have implications for bilateral ties because a government long accused of winking at Beijing’s transgressions decided to go public with its disappointment. China left out of credit roll
New Delhi: While reeling off a list of countries India was grateful to, Pranab Mukherjee pointedly did not mention China. ‘‘I would like to take the opportunity to place on record Government’s deep appreciation in particular for the untiring efforts of the US, France, UK and Russia throughout this process, and also the support received from the present and previous Chairs of the NSG — Germany, South Africa and Brazil,’’ said Mukherjee.
During the debate at the NSG on Friday, the most crucial day, China raised a number of unspecified “concerns”. As one diplomat present at the meeting said, “none of these were substantive objections and were meant to frustrate US’ efforts to secure the waiver. Like everybody, the Chinese also knew that delay was death for this deal”.
Beijing capitulated only after Bush called Chinese president Hu Jintao and India put strongly-worded notes in their mailbox. After the NSG declared a consensus on the waiver for India, Chinese diplomats stressed their national position for a “balance between international non-proliferation efforts and nuclear energy.”

Well the hostilities remain , and no matter what it is we cant believe what china says ...........

or is it to make Pakistan happy that they had made an effort to pull the plug

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 08:20
There was a line from a movie, I think, in my time which went - What Lola wants, Lola gets!

This NSG agreement has been pushed by George Bush and what George Bush wants, George Bush gets!

It is win win for the USA. He has capped India's military nuclear programme and made it dependent on the US umbrella in case of a threat to India (from China?). It is in line with the US geostrategic perspective in so far as Asia and the Indian Ocean is concerned.

China can publicly posture and which they will have to do since this Agreement has 'enveloped' India into the US scheme of things and that is surely not comfortable for China. It is also a signal to Pakistan that if they don't play ball with the Afghanistan, then India can be unleashed.

The very fact that this Agreement (the final document is yet to be released) prevents nuclear testing, is indicative that India has sold her sovereignty and much that I baulk to use the word, it has become an appendage!

And nuclear fuel is not going to be cheap. I believe it is Rs 400 or 4000 crores down the drain with the first signs of any testing of a nuclear device. Even otherwise, nuclear energy is not cheap!

And what happens to the spent fuel? Will the US take it back?

A very short term benefit project it appears.

But then, I am no expert!

pravin
07 Sep 08,, 08:27
There was a line from a movie, I think, in my time which went - What Lola wants, Lola gets!

This NSG agreement has been pushed by George Bush and what George Bush wants, George Bush gets!

It is win win for the USA. He has capped India's military nuclear programme and made it dependent on the US umbrella in case of a threat to India (from China?). It is in line with the US geostrategic perspective in so far as Asia and the Indian Ocean is concerned.

China can publicly posture and which they will have to do since this Agreement has 'enveloped' India into the US scheme of things and that is surely not comfortable for China. It is also a signal to Pakistan that if they don't play ball with the Afghanistan, then India can be unleashed.

The very fact that this Agreement (the final document is yet to be released) prevents nuclear testing, is indicative that India has sold her sovereignty and much that I baulk to use the word, it has become an appendage!

And nuclear fuel is not going to be cheap. I believe it is Rs 400 or 4000 crores down the drain with the first signs of any testing of a nuclear device. Even otherwise, nuclear energy is not cheap!

And what happens to the spent fuel? Will the US take it back?

A very short term benefit project it appears.

But then, I am no expert!

Sir how long do you think the deal will be honoured.Suppose BJP comes into power and cancels the deal then what.I also personally feel India is trying to
fight China head-on.

zraver
07 Sep 08,, 08:32
There was a line from a movie, I think, in my time which went - What Lola wants, Lola gets!

This NSG agreement has been pushed by George Bush and what George Bush wants, George Bush gets!

It is win win for the USA. He has capped India's military nuclear programme and made it dependent on the US umbrella in case of a threat to India (from China?). It is in line with the US geostrategic perspective in so far as Asia and the Indian Ocean is concerned.

China can publicly posture and which they will have to do since this Agreement has 'enveloped' India into the US scheme of things and that is surely not comfortable for China. It is also a signal to Pakistan that if they don't play ball with the Afghanistan, then India can be unleashed.

The very fact that this Agreement (the final document is yet to be released) prevents nuclear testing, is indicative that India has sold her sovereignty and much that I baulk to use the word, it has become an appendage!

And nuclear fuel is not going to be cheap. I believe it is Rs 400 or 4000 crores down the drain with the first signs of any testing of a nuclear device. Even otherwise, nuclear energy is not cheap!

And what happens to the spent fuel? Will the US take it back?

A very short term benefit project it appears.

But then, I am no expert!

Brigadier, how can you possibly think that? Your nation has a huge brain trust and can computer model all the warhead designs they need. As far a power goes, nuke power is cheap- very cheap. It seems like a lot because of the upfront cost and disposal costs but given the life of reactors and amount of power they can deliver its brings total cost per megawatt hour down below any other source but coal in the US, and even then its less than a dollar from that cheap source. Cost Comparison - Nuclear vs. Coal (http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm)

As you see the disposal/storage cost are figured in.

Personally, your power-your waste-your problem. Who ever gets the lights, gets the glowing green goo to deal with. new technologies like glassification are emerging that offer stable, secure long term storage

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 08:44
Pravin,

I really don't know since the whole thing is still nebulous.

One really does not know what all are being given and what are not being given.

Is the reprocessing technology being given?

Yesterday, one of the nuclear scientist said that the French nuclear processing was the best!

Very nebulous.

I am not too aware as to what is the cost vs other sources of energy as hydroelectric power, solar, wind, water.

I saw the World Debate on BBC on Alternate Fuels. Shell and the Mayor of Houston were there. They said it was the new industry!

Therefore, is it, our NSG stuff, just an ego trip?

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 08:48
Zraver,

As I said, I am not an expert on nuclear technology.

Hence, I am unable to comment!

I prefer not to tread ground that I have not some worthwhile knowledge.

martinmystry
07 Sep 08,, 08:59
I don't think so Brigadier.
The agreement doesn't forbid INDIA from nuclear testing but the repercussions of testing would definitely test the courage of government.
And as far as the costs are involved even the computers and mobiles were very costly earlier but when demand raised their prices came down and i think the same is going to happen to nuclear energy.

Also it would enable the transfer of dual use technology to INDIA and open the gates for Indian scientists to collaborate with the western ones on new fronts.

As far as George Bush is concerned, yeh he definitely got whatever he wants
and it should be considering he is the President of World's Only Superpower.
And without him India wouldn't have got the waiver in it's present 'unconditional' form.

India has gained a lot from this deal and it should indeed be very happy.

martinmystry
07 Sep 08,, 09:12
I don't think the BJP has guts to cancel the deal as it wouldn't want to harm relationship with U.S.

And by the way even B.J.P. wouldn't have got a better deal than this.

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 09:14
The agreement doesn't forbid INDIA from nuclear testing but the repercussions of testing would definitely test the courage of government.
And as far as the costs are involved even the computers and mobiles were very costly earlier but when demand raised their prices came down and i think the same is going to happen to nuclear energy.

Also it would enable the transfer of dual use technology to INDIA and open the gates for Indian scientists to collaborate with the western ones on new fronts.


Interesting points indeed.

Shred of semantics, if means if India tests, then everything dries up. Isn't that obvious? So, how is it any different when we tested earlier and faced sanctions? Does the NSG protect us from sanctions if we test? Anything has changed?

Dual use transfer. Dual use in what? Nuclear tech? As I understand with whatever is available, they won't part with the reprocessing tech. What other dual tech is on the anvil? I am not aware. If you are, do share with us.

Has the demand on electricity through other sources brought the rates down? In fact, it has just kept on escalating!

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 09:17
I don't think the BJP has guts to cancel the deal as it wouldn't want to harm relationship with U.S.

And by the way even B.J.P. wouldn't have got a better deal than this.

I am no votary for the BJP, but they way they organised the CBMs with Pakistan, which the current govt has squandered the opportunity, does make me believe that they would have hammered out a better deal.

But then the BJP of Vajpayee and the BJP of Advani are two different kettles of fish!

zraver
07 Sep 08,, 10:19
Dual use transfer. Dual use in what? Nuclear tech? As I understand with whatever is available, they won't part with the reprocessing tech. What other dual tech is on the anvil? I am not aware. If you are, do share with us.

India already has reprosseing technology and has had since 1964. The sticking point is the reproccessing of US origin fuel.


Has the demand on electricity through other sources brought the rates down? In fact, it has just kept on escalating!

Sir, as a matter of record, oil prices only began the steep climb recently. After the brief spike starting in 1973, buy 1998 the price was nearly the same as in 1947!

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

India's GDP is 1.09 trillion USD in value in 2007 as compared to 1960 when it was around 36 billion USD. Thats 30 times bigger now then it was then, while oil is only about 7 times more expensive.

martinmystry
07 Sep 08,, 10:27
Interesting points indeed.

Shred of semantics, if means if India tests, then everything dries up. Isn't that obvious? So, how is it any different when we tested earlier and faced sanctions? Does the NSG protect us from sanctions if we test? Anything has changed?

Dual use transfer. Dual use in what? Nuclear tech? As I understand with whatever is available, they won't part with the reprocessing tech. What other dual tech is on the anvil? I am not aware. If you are, do share with us.

Has the demand on electricity through other sources brought the rates down? In fact, it has just kept on escalating!

No it definitely isn't that obvious.
If INDIA tests the NSG will meet and have to decide by consensus to scrap the draft which isn't easy considering the countries earning billions of
dollars wouldn't want it.

Dual use tech. in civilian space programs, supercomputers for metrology etc. etc. As far as i know there is no mention of ban on transfer of ENR tech. to INDIA.So INDIA have to sign individual agreements with other countries in this respect.

The electricity cost for nuclear energy will certainly come down if you consider long time approach as it is an environment friendly source so it will also help reduce the carbon emission.

sohamsri
07 Sep 08,, 10:42
Yes...we should take inspiration from France in harnessing nuclear power.

dilawar
07 Sep 08,, 13:49
There has been understandably a lot of optimism, pessimism regarding this deal. But for sure one thing being bandied about that 'India has lost it's right to test' is bogus. Nobody sits on any high chair and gives India the right or no right to test. However anyone can sit on as high a chair they want, even Burkina Faso for that matter and once India tests, Burkina can put full sanctions on India. The US has it's own Hyde Law that determines it's reaction in case India tests.

India wanted a clean waver from NSG that did'nt include an automatic decision amongst members of termination of fuel in case India tests in the future. It did manage to get that.

I do not see anyway Americans have capped India's strategic programme. Anil Kakodkar has confirmed the plan does'nt infringe on strategic choices or the 3-stage programme. Fact is that Americans might lose business here due to the Hyde act. Due to it, Indian companies would rather invest in French or Russian plants which will come without 'Hyde' type strings attached.

Presently around a dozen reactors are running at 40% production capacity due to lack of fuel. With the deal on i can see almost immediate firing up of production on these units to high burn rates.

As far as testing goes, i don't see why India needs to test in the foreseeable future. Even if one may have doubts on our TN device our BF ones will work just fine at 50-150 KT. India will certainly invest in laser ignition simulation facilities to fine tune weapons. Even the last tests showed that India did not only do 'proof of principle' testing but also 'proof of pit dynamics' testing.

Overall IMHO this is a good deal for India, US and for non-proliferation objectives. GWB and MMS have worked hard on this and certainly deserve credit for the vision. This also maybe GWBs best foreign policy legacy in his term at office. But we can wait to confirm.

Samudra
07 Sep 08,, 14:40
There is no cap on our strategic program. We are free to do what we want, and that includes testing a weapon or two.

Sure they'll sanction us again but then who's telling me they won't do the same without an agreement? :confused:

The agreement will be a win-win for everybody involved - Bush and MMS, USA and India.

Sure there's the Hyde Act but if US wants to hurt us they can hurt us in a thousand ways.

Once MMS and Bush complete the whole process they should be given due credit, and congratulated.

Frankly, I wish India and US got closer than this. May an Indo-US alliance based on principle and pragmatism take shape. It is the need of the hour.

China and Islamism we have to defeat. :)

Samudra
07 Sep 08,, 14:44
So, how is it any different when we tested earlier and faced sanctions? Does the NSG protect us from sanctions if we test? Anything has changed?

Brigadier.

We can buy plenty of reactors and the required fuel. That is the bottom line,Sir.

pravin
07 Sep 08,, 14:46
There is no cap on our strategic program. We are free to do what we want, and that includes testing a weapon or two.

Sure they'll sanction us again but then who's telling me they won't do the same without an agreement? :confused:

The agreement will be a win-win for everybody involved - Bush and MMS, USA and India.

Sure there's the Hyde Act but if US wants to hurt us they can hurt us in a thousand ways.

Once MMS and Bush complete the whole process they should be given due credit, and congratulated.

Frankly, I wish India and US got closer than this. May an Indo-US alliance based on principle and pragmatism take shape. It is the need of the hour.

China and Islamism we have to defeat. :)

Samudra until we have seen the NSG draft we cannot say anything

sohamsri
07 Sep 08,, 14:50
China and Islamism we have to defeat. :)

Only radical Islamism...nothing wrong with Indian muslims.

Vinod2070
07 Sep 08,, 14:53
I have read that the French are the only ones who have standardized the nuclear technology to a level where they can build a reactor on time and budget. Their technology is more advanced than Russians and decision making less complicated than the US.

They may get a big chunk of the Indian market though to USA goes the main credit for delivering the deal!

Samudra
07 Sep 08,, 14:56
Only radical Islamism...nothing wrong with Indian muslims.

When we say Islamism it means radical Islam, basically people getting hyper about religion.


Samudra until we have seen the NSG draft we cannot say anything

Dost Mera, take a chill pill. The draft is out long since. It's a two page clean waiver. Take out your Diwali rockets and shoot one onto your neighbors house. :cool:

Vinod2070
07 Sep 08,, 14:56
Only radical Islamism...nothing wrong with Indian muslims.

Bingo. Some Indian Muslims are getting affected by the global Jihad fever and the demagoguery of the mullahs but they can be reclaimed once they see the global Jihadi movement getting crushed.

pravin
07 Sep 08,, 14:57
I have read that the French are the only ones who have standardized the nuclear technology to a level where they can build a reactor on time and budget. Their technology is more advanced than Russians and decision making less complicated than the US.

They may get a big chunk of the Indian market though to USA goes the main credit for delivering the deal!

Big bully Bob was used to open the doors

sohamsri
07 Sep 08,, 14:58
I have read that the French are the only ones who have standardized the nuclear technology to a level where they can build a reactor on time and budget. Their technology is more advanced than Russians and decision making less complicated than the US.

They may get a big chunk of the Indian market though to USA goes the main credit for delivering the deal!

That is true...thats why they have(along with the Russkies) almost got a contract for 1000 MW reactors..

pravin
07 Sep 08,, 14:58
When we say Islamism it means radical Islam, basically people getting hyper about religion.



Dost Mera, take a chill pill. The draft is out long since. It's a two page clean waiver. Take out your Diwali rockets and shoot one onto your neighbors house. :cool:

Can you give a link to that draft

sohamsri
07 Sep 08,, 14:59
Dost Mera, take a chill pill. The draft is out long since. It's a two page clean waiver. Take out your Diwali rockets and shoot one onto your neighbors house. :cool:

I'l do that right now !! :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
07 Sep 08,, 16:37
I'm getting a freaking headache from this.

Apparently, the NSG took this signed statement from the Indian External Affairs Minister as promise and recorded


We remain committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. We do not subscribe to any arms race, including a nuclear arms race. We have always tempered the exercise of our strategic autonomy with a sense of global responsibility. We affirm our policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons.

We are committed to work with others towards the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament that is universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable.

So, while yes, the waiver is "cleanish," it is dependent upon India's word. I really don't know what the hell this means. If India breaks her promise, then is the NSG free to break hers?

Oh, there was a hell of a lot of horse trading going on. Bush had to promise something to China and I will not be surprised if Dehli and Beijing did some horse trading of their own.

Dealing with my wife seems easier.

Officer of Engineers
07 Sep 08,, 16:40
Brigadier, how can you possibly think that? Your nation has a huge brain trust and can computer model all the warhead designs they need.Non-Indian consensus is that their first attempt at thermo-nukes failed.

Yusuf
07 Sep 08,, 17:15
Great milestone in Indian history this. Hope we get uninterrupted power supply in the future.
With regards to testing, the agreement says that there will be a one year cooling period during which both parties sit and thrash out the reasons for testing. There is no immediate and automatic freeze i gather.
So in the event of China or Pakistan testing something extraordinary, then India can test and give the reasons for it.
India insisted that the word "testing" stay out of the draft and got it. Everything is open to individual interpretation.
For now, Frances Areva and Russia is lining up to wrap up some deals and get a head start over the US. Sensing this, the US businesses holding interest in nuclear contracts with India is pressuring Congress to pass the 123 agreement in a jiffy.

martinmystry
07 Sep 08,, 17:18
Non-Indian consensus is that their first attempt at thermo-nukes failed.

I agree with you.The second stage of India's thermo-nuke at pokhran-II failed
and the yield was only in the range 12-25 kiloton.
Indeed the DAE under the veil of secrecy has the right to present the tests as a success when eventually it failed in the second stage.

zraver
07 Sep 08,, 17:41
Non-Indian consensus is that their first attempt at thermo-nukes failed.

they still got the information from the test. What I am arguing is India does not need to test to develop weapons-Israel hasn't for example.

pravin
07 Sep 08,, 17:45
they still got the information from the test. What I am arguing is India does not need to test to develop weapons-Israel hasn't for example.

But Israel got proven designs from France

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 18:38
There is no cap on our strategic program. We are free to do what we want, and that includes testing a weapon or two.

Indeed!

And the consequences?

BTW China has mooted the same dispensation for Pakistam.

Comments!

Sumku
07 Sep 08,, 18:45
BTW China has mooted the same dispensation for Pakistam.Comments!

I for sure would want Pakistan to have this deal too. They don't have money to buy planes for their AF and take loans and want a Nuclear Deal. Let them have it. Its not cheap.

Samudra
07 Sep 08,, 18:56
Indeed!

And the consequences?

BTW China has mooted the same dispensation for Pakistam.

Comments!

Sir

Before the waiver
Problem 1. No access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel.
Problem 2. Threat of sanctions if we test.

After the waiver
Problem 1 has disappeared.
Problem 2 : 123 shall provide for a one year consultation period between the United States and India in case of a test before sanctions. We shall also possess strategic fuel reserves. Besides, we shall also buy from Russia and French.

We have minimized the consequences. We can continue to work on the Problem 2 but 'this deal was only about solving Problem 1.'

I believe we should be happy that Problem 1 no longer exists. As for Problem 2, Sir, we are growing stronger every day. The more we are integrated into the world economy the more it would hurt USA/Europe to sanction us.

This may not be the best deal but I'd say this is a good deal.

We cannot always live in the fear of 'consequences'. A young and resurgent India is willing to take on the consequences when it comes.

The sky will not fall.

Pakistan can even have a 786 agreement for all we care. They're simply not getting any help in civilian nuclear technology for anytime soon. China does not a consensus in NSG make!

Officer of Engineers
07 Sep 08,, 18:58
So in the event of China or Pakistan testing something extraordinary, then India can test and give the reasons for it.China signed the CTBT but has yet to ratified though they are obeying the terms of the treaty.

Unless things changed in 20 years, both Pakistan and India will be forced to test if for nothing else, to determined the viability of their aged arsenals. The N5 has already collected enough data from their aged arsenals to do computer simulations. India and Pakistan has yet to collect this data.

As for Indian testing, even though India has got a clean waiver, let's face it, India jumped through hoops to get it. And that means all the upfront and signed promises not to test, including what the foreign minister has just presented to the NSG. Yes, no test is not in the NSG waiver document but India had to produce another document to get around it. It's not as free as the Indian populace seems to think.

Exactly what this means? I don't know. I do know that Canada walked away from several $bil deal after 1974.

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 19:37
[QUOTE=zraver;542037]India already has reprosseing technology and has had since 1964. The sticking point is the reproccessing of US origin fuel.



Sir, as a matter of record, oil prices only began the steep climb recently. After the brief spike starting in 1973, buy 1998 the price was nearly the same as in 1947!

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

India's GDP is 1.09 trillion USD in value in 2007 as compared to 1960 when it was around 36 billion USD. Thats 30 times bigger now then it was then, while oil is only about 7 times more expensive.

GDP etc are not material.

4000 crore Rupees is.

Could that not have been used for thorium reprocessing without losing the right to test?

And also for alternate fuels?


[QUOTE=martinmystry;542038]No it definitely isn't that obvious.
If INDIA tests the NSG will meet and have to decide by consensus to scrap the draft which isn't easy considering the countries earning billions of
dollars wouldn't want it.

Dual use tech. in civilian space programs, supercomputers for metrology etc. etc. As far as i know there is no mention of ban on transfer of ENR tech. to INDIA.So INDIA have to sign individual agreements with other countries in this respect.

The electricity cost for nuclear energy will certainly come down if you consider long time approach as it is an environment friendly source so it will also help reduce the carbon emission.

Nuclear fuel is partially environmentally friendly. How is the spent fuel be disposed off?

As they claim, India does not have to test any more nukes. So, is the case that India does not have to do anything more in any field!


[QUOTE=Samudra;542097]Brigadier.

We can buy plenty of reactors and the required fuel. That is the bottom line,Sir.

Really??

And the Big 5 can keep honing their nuclear technology?

Ray
07 Sep 08,, 19:38
Colonel,

China has demanded the same concessions for Pakistan.

Now what?

And China is no pushover!

There will surely be more AQ Khans and hopefully not aligned to the Taliban!

Tronic
07 Sep 08,, 20:02
Nothing can stop India from testing again: Kalam

The Missile Man of India, former President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, who has supported the Indo-US nuclear deal previously also, spoke exclusively to NDTV in his first reaction a day after the NSG waiver to the nuke deal.

Kalam described how the nuclear deal is good for India, what more does he foresee apart from the waiver and the final pact and on any possible Pokharan III. He also spoke about what he told Mulayam Singh and others that saved the present UPA government and about his relationship with the PM.

The former President said that political groups should come forward, leaving behind their political inclination. They must see to it that the Uranium mines of the country are opened so that our scientists use the Uranium materials what is available within the country, he said.

Here are the excerpts of what Dr Kalam's told NDTV's Science Editor Pallava Bagla in an interview:

On politicians

I have not only told them but many other political leaders. They met me and I told them that India-US nuclear pact is very important in national interest. It is going to help the nation and particularly in the power sector and we should do everything as a nation we should go ahead.

Of course, it is of national interest since I am looking like this. So far India was not in the so called nuclear cub, so we became a part of the nuclear house. So, certainly it is an endorsement to that situation.

And second thing is, I look at it in a different way - we have number of nuclear reactors and all of them are Uranium based reactors. So Uranium, of course, we have shortage even though our many states have got a potential. compared to Thorium we have a limited resource.

So, we need to power our nuclear power reactors for full capacity we need Uranium, this waiver and the pact that we are going to sign is definitely going to assist us in the electricity generation using nuclear reactors.

Well, you see supreme national interest, ok, every country got supreme national interest, any pact or any treaty when the national interest comes in, becomes the highest priority.

On nuclear fuel

We already have a certain reserve of Uranium and this will be the power our nuclear reactors, all of them and future reactors also. But I am pushing, our nuclear scientists are working very hard on Thorium-based nuclear reactor, even then we need some Uranium.

Even then, even Thorium based nuclear reactors that Uranium that we have will become a reserve till then, we buy.

On energy independence

My only interest is energy independence. This is going to help us. This is going to assist us. This energy waiver and the pact will assist us. My only mission is how do you make nuclear power that is electricity using nuclear reactors by the 2030 say about 50,000 MW of power.

Any political system, any political party, the nation is of prime importance. All parties have to work for the nation that is my message. Does it meets your political requirements

On India's road ahead

We have not yet signed the pact but we got the NSG waiver, that is the first step.

Well I am happy, I am happy about the NSG waiver but I'll be more happier on two events if they take place in my country.

First event will be that all the states, there are a few states in our country that have got Uranium reserve. Irrespective of political inclination, they must see to it that the Uranium mines are opened so that our scientists use the Uranium materials what is available within the country.

Secondly, our nuclear scientists say it will take 10 years to become Thorium-based nuclear reactors, they must do it in 5-7 years in mission mode. They should be a number of fast breed and nuclear fast breed reactors.

That waiver, what I am saying, it will be available for us whom the nuclear reactor gets in. But this should be a reserve for us. But mines should be available. Of course, I always get good sleep, no problem.

On the Prime Minister

Well, we talk number of times, we talk a number of times. We are in touch with each other. I respect him, he talks to me, no problem. Yes he called me (after the waiver). I am happy with him.

On Pokharan II and Pokharan III

Pokharan II is actually our nuclear scientist. They all worked together and you know I believe when you say, when you declare moratorium for nuclear test, what does this mean - you have built certain capability and you can build certain types of nuclear weapons with that confidence you said - I will not conduct any more test.

Temporarily, a moratorium you have put, so I believe that is very important. It is an important message. That means we have certain capability, we can do certain types of system.

Now whether we can do further test - you see there is always supreme national interest. When the supreme national interest is there, no pact no treaty nothing can come in between in a nation that is supreme sovereign interest.

So in that case suppose India decides it has to go for supreme sovereign, that means international situation made the nation to do a test.

It has to do a test then the question comes in - now there is a pact we have, they can see the reason why the international situation they are forcing us to the test. Well then the waiver, the pact may stay or the second thing is they may withdraw. but the national interest is always the highest priority.

India will do the test in the supreme national interest, nobody can stop, nobody can stop, but in that case, your question is - what happens to the pact - two things may happed, the may still stand, they may see why you have done the test. There is a reason why we did the test. Otherwise they'll say goodbye, and we'll say goodbye.

Supreme national interest of the nation is to be protected. I am happy there. I told you when supreme national interest comes in - India has to decide, because nothing can come in between.

NDTV.com: Nothing can stop India from testing again: Kalam (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064436&ch=9/7/2008%2010:12:00%20PM)


I think he has a very good point. If it becomes crucial for us to test again, we will. It will all depend on how important it is to test the bomb. Because lets face it, deal or no deal, we would still get sanctioned anyways. With the deal, we can continue to grow economically because energy security is probably the most important thing for India right now, far more then testing a bomb.

Sumku
07 Sep 08,, 20:09
I think he has a very good point. If it becomes crucial for us to test again, we will. It will all depend on how important it is to test the bomb. Because lets face it, deal or no deal, we would still get sanctioned anyways. With the deal, we can continue to grow economically because energy security is probably the most important thing for India right now, far more then testing a bomb.

Absolutely in agreement with you here.

Officer of Engineers
07 Sep 08,, 23:10
they still got the information from the test. What I am arguing is India does not need to test to develop weapons-Israel hasn't for example.Israel is not doing MIRV.


Colonel,

China has demanded the same concessions for Pakistan.

Now what?

And China is no pushover!

There will surely be more AQ Khans and hopefully not aligned to the Taliban!Sir,

I don't know. There was a hell of a lot of horse trading in the final hours. I don't know exactly what Bush promised China but suffice to say that the Chinese will be using the tact.

My head hurts trying to think this through. The Chinese and South Koreans still maintain an interest in the North Korean nuclear situation who is no longer an NPT signatory. And that is supported by both Japan and the US.

Let's also not forget the whole sleuth of promises that India gave. Yes, those promises were not included in the 123 nor the Waiver but they remain promises nevertheless. India gave her word. It remains to be seen if India will keep her word.

I'm going to wait for people a lot smarter than me to think this through.

metric
08 Sep 08,, 01:36
On the subject of Indian/Pakistan reliability testing, can they use low/zero yield testing?

zraver
08 Sep 08,, 02:55
But Israel got proven designs from France

And India has its own proven designs and IIT.

zraver
08 Sep 08,, 03:00
[QUOTE]

GDP etc are not material.

Yes it is, India's economy is outpacing the rise in fule prices so the total spent on fuel as a percentage of GDP is going down.

[quote]And also for alternate fuels?[QUOTE]

What alternative fuels? I am not aware of India having abundant source sof domestic energy supplies besides biomass and that is a new technology.

Nuclear fuel is partially environmentally friendly. How is the spent fuel be disposed off?[QUOTE]

You store it, its expensive but still cheaper than gas or oil. In the US with our massive regulatory burdens nuclear power is still most cost efficient than anything but coal. And coal would go up if we didn't keep deferring clean up and emissions control.

pravin
08 Sep 08,, 04:44
And India has its own proven designs and IIT.

Sir you are really humouring us.The countries which uses the services of IIT grads the most is US and to some extent Germany.Out of say a batch of 60
grads 50 will be emigrating to US.IIT is unecessary ,I did my engineering at a regional university and nearly half of my classmates are going to pursue higher studies in the US.Brain drain is a serious problem in India

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 08,, 04:54
On the subject of Indian/Pakistan reliability testing, can they use low/zero yield testing?Well, in order to test the reliability of an aged arsenal, you need, well, an aged arsenal.

zraver
08 Sep 08,, 05:29
Sir you are really humouring us.The countries which uses the services of IIT grads the most is US and to some extent Germany.Out of say a batch of 60
grads 50 will be emigrating to US.IIT is unecessary ,I did my engineering at a regional university and nearly half of my classmates are going to pursue higher studies in the US.Brain drain is a serious problem in India

Then pay more or pass emigration laws. Say anyone who goes to ITT has to do X numbers of years in India, but make sure they get a competitive wage. If the grads are that good, and by all accounts they are- the companies will come to India.

Even losing 5/6ths of the graduates leaves India with some very very good minds.

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 08,, 05:42
No it definitely isn't that obvious.
If INDIA tests the NSG will meet and have to decide by consensus to scrap the draft which isn't easy considering the countries earning billions of
dollars wouldn't want it.

It does not seem that way


Linkage Between India's Commitments and the Waiver (http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3340)

The connection between India's nonproliferation statements and the NSG decision to allow nuclear trade and its possible termination of nuclear trade should have been clear and unambiguous. Yet, Paragraph 3 of the NSG statement undeniably says the "basis" of the India specific waiver includes its July 2005 pledges and the Sept. 5 statement by India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, which include a pledge to maintain India's nuclear test moratorium.

Following the NSG's reluctant approval of the statement on India, several states delivered national statements that clarify their views on how the NSG's policy on India shall be implemented. Among the states that delivered statements were: Austria, China, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.

Japan noted that the exemption for India was decided on the condition that India continues to observe its commitments, especially its nuclear test moratorium pledge. Japan noted that if India resumed testing, "the logical consequence is to terminate trade." Most of the other statements also made this point.

Germany, and perhaps others, added that it expects India to take further nonproliferation and disarmament measures, including "entry into force of the CTBT and a termination of fissile material production for weapons."

Therefore, if India tests, the NSG would immediately meet in an emergency session (as already allowed for in the NSG guidelines) and the widespread expectation would be for all NSG states to terminate nuclear trade immediately. And despite the Indian government's false representations to its public and parliament, neither the United States nor other responsible nuclear suppliers are going to feel obliged to respect earlier fuel supply guarantees or help find some other country to supply India with nuclear fuel if India tests for any reason or violates its safeguards commitments.

pravin
08 Sep 08,, 05:53
Then pay more or pass emigration laws. Say anyone who goes to ITT has to do X numbers of years in India, but make sure they get a competitive wage. If the grads are that good, and by all accounts they are- the companies will come to India.

Even losing 5/6ths of the graduates leaves India with some very very good minds.

Sir even then no one will be willing to work for the GoI because of the peanuts it provides.Students work so hard in their Highschool years to get into IIT.I
completed my high school in a boarding school which would make an army boot camp look like a seaside resort

Tronic
08 Sep 08,, 07:27
Sir you are really humouring us.The countries which uses the services of IIT grads the most is US and to some extent Germany.Out of say a batch of 60
grads 50 will be emigrating to US.IIT is unecessary ,I did my engineering at a regional university and nearly half of my classmates are going to pursue higher studies in the US.Brain drain is a serious problem in India

Not really true. Brain drain was a problem a decade back; recent trend shows a lot of high skilled Indians returning back to India, due to the economic growth. The ever popular media term "brain drain" a couple years back is now replaced by "reverse immigration" or even "brain gain".

Just a little googling will give you the idea:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Indians head home in 'brain gain' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5290494.stm)
'Brain gain' for India as elite return | World news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/20/india.globaleconomy)
US' brain drain is India's brain gain-Special Report-Sunday Specials-Opinion-The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1056694.cms)

Ray
08 Sep 08,, 07:58
[QUOTE=Ray;542211]

Yes it is, India's economy is outpacing the rise in fule prices so the total spent on fuel as a percentage of GDP is going down.

[quote]And also for alternate fuels?[QUOTE]

What alternative fuels? I am not aware of India having abundant source sof domestic energy supplies besides biomass and that is a new technology.

Nuclear fuel is partially environmentally friendly. How is the spent fuel be disposed off?[QUOTE]

You store it, its expensive but still cheaper than gas or oil. In the US with our massive regulatory burdens nuclear power is still most cost efficient than anything but coal. And coal would go up if we didn't keep deferring clean up and emissions control.

It is time to check out India and its resources!

Coal is not the only issue!

pravin
08 Sep 08,, 08:01
I think we have good resourses of coal

Ray
08 Sep 08,, 08:01
[QUOTE=Ray;542211]

Yes it is, India's economy is outpacing the rise in fule prices so the total spent on fuel as a percentage of GDP is going down.

[quote]And also for alternate fuels?[QUOTE]

What alternative fuels? I am not aware of India having abundant source sof domestic energy supplies besides biomass and that is a new technology.

Nuclear fuel is partially environmentally friendly. How is the spent fuel be disposed off?[QUOTE]

You store it, its expensive but still cheaper than gas or oil. In the US with our massive regulatory burdens nuclear power is still most cost efficient than anything but coal. And coal would go up if we didn't keep deferring clean up and emissions control.

Time you checked the resources available in India.

pravin
08 Sep 08,, 08:45
Not really true. Brain drain was a problem a decade back; recent trend shows a lot of high skilled Indians returning back to India, due to the economic growth. The ever popular media term "brain drain" a couple years back is now replaced by "reverse immigration" or even "brain gain".

Just a little googling will give you the idea:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Indians head home in 'brain gain' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5290494.stm)
'Brain gain' for India as elite return | World news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/20/india.globaleconomy)
US' brain drain is India's brain gain-Special Report-Sunday Specials-Opinion-The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1056694.cms)

What you said is valid in the case of IT professionals and to some extent doctors.Highly-skilled people never prefer to come here.My cousin is a v-p
in Texas instruments, my family asked him to come back to India many times but he says e doesn't get enough work here

Deltacamelately
08 Sep 08,, 09:22
It does not seem that way
Sir,

Where are you people diagreeing?
Indeed there is aprovision for emmergency meeting of the NSG following an Indian test. But where is the hypothetical consensus to cut all material and tech supply? Its a sticky patch.

1. Why is India being exempted by a regime founded against India's test in 1974?
A. India of 1974 and 2008 are light years away. We need the world and US, they also need us, for whatsoever reasons.
2. India of 2008 won't remain same, say in 2025 when let's say India tests again for some unforseen reasons in supreme national interests. Will there be a immediate mutual consensus to cut all trade and suppy, even by countries minting money or by countries with very deep economical/strategic relations with india.
A. Very Very Unlikely. They will think twice, thrice, many times.
3. Does India needs to test in the immediate future?
A. No it doesn't. We have tested 10 years back and have sufficient data to keep us busy and rectify the faults. If and When required, we will test. The Netherlans, Austria, Switzerland, Japan....Vatican can do whatever they deem necessary.

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 08,, 09:30
Major,

I would not count the NSG out. Those are major stake holders, including the very moral voice of Japan. They are the only ones who suffered a nuclear attack. The very fact that this group came out and stated that they will kill the Waiver if India test is very significant, least of all because they are stating up front that they are relying on your own country's signed statements that you will not test.

Also, we have historic precedence. Canada walked away from $billions when you tested in 1974. We threw away $billions when Tianamen Square happened. We rather suffer an oil embargo rather than let Israel stand alone. Money is not good enough reason to say we won't act.

As to why we want to support this Waiver. A good friend told me today, can you imagine the price of oil if India didn't go nuclear?

n21
08 Sep 08,, 10:19
As to why we want to support this Waiver. A good friend told me today, can you imagine the price of oil if India didn't go nuclear?

The largest consumer of oil in India is Indian Railways. Around 50%-60%.

This is atleast one area where electricity is really useful.

The One
08 Sep 08,, 14:27
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: Zardari to visit China, negotiate nuclear deal (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064509)

Zardari to visit China, negotiate nuclear deal

Indo-Asian News Service

Monday, September 08, 2008, (Islamabad)

Asif Ali Zardari, the new president of Pakistan, will visit China next week to negotiate a nuclear deal similar to the one between India and the US, an official said on Monday.

"Pakistan is already in touch with China for the nuclear deal to meet its energy crisis and the talks would start during Zardari's visit," an official said.

Zardari, who was elected president on Saturday, will be sworn in on Tuesday and has already announced that his first foreign visit will be to China.

The official said that under the proposed deal, China will supply nuclear material to Pakistan to meet its energy crisis.

"This has nothing to do with the US-India deal but that has certainly provided us a way out to meet our energy crisis," he said.

For the last many years, Pakistan has failed to meet its growing energy needs and the situation has worsened since November 2007, with the country facing massive power cuts and adopting summer time to benefit the most from daylight and save energy.

"Of course it will take time to finalise the deal after going through its details but the initial talks would start during Zardari's visit and a memorandum of understanding (MoU) may be signed for reaching an agreement," said the official.

Zardari's visit will coincide with the closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games September 17.

"Zardari will participate in the closing ceremony as well," said the official.

Pakistan and China have a long history of close cooperation that started in early 50s and saw stronger ties during former prime minister and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's era.

As foreign minister in military dictator Ayub Khan's government, Bhutto played an active role in bringing Pakistan and China closer when the US was distancing itself from Pakistan in the mid 1960s.

In the last three years, there have been 10 state visits by Pakistani officials to China. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was the last top official to visit China last month. In April, former president Pervez Musharraf has also visited the country.

Samudra
08 Sep 08,, 15:37
Colonel,


I would not count the NSG out. Those are major stake holders, including the very moral voice of Japan.

Decision to repeal the waiver shall have to be by explicit consensus. We can and will have supporters with very strong commercial/geo-political interests to block anything disastrous from happening. I can count Russia and French amongst our strong allies in the NSG.


Canada walked away from $billions when you tested in 1974

Sir, that was thirty years ago.

Today we'll only buy when you guarantee uninterrupted supplies. You can't hurt India like how you did in 1974. You're free to lose your commercial interests if you want to but that won't do much to stop us for long.


Money is not good enough reason to say we won't act.

Countries can sympathize with very legitimate security concerns of a liberal, open democracy - in fact the largest democracy in the world. We have two major threats on both sides of our land frontiers.

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 08,, 16:01
Decision to repeal the waiver shall have to be by explicit consensus. We can and will have supporters with very strong commercial/geo-political interests to block anything disastrous from happening. I can count Russia and French amongst our strong allies in the NSG.If the US can push it through, the US can kill it. The key here is how the US will view any situation.


Today we'll only buy when you guarantee uninterrupted supplies. You can't hurt India like how you did in 1974. You're free to lose your commercial interests if you want to but that won't do much to stop us for long.Again, this would be dependant on the US and I remind you, the key phrase that they used - through no fault of India's.


Countries can sympathize with very legitimate security concerns of a liberal, open democracy - in fact the largest democracy in the world. We have two major threats on both sides of our land frontiers.I would've thought Kargil and the tolerance of Pakistani activities would've given you a hint.

Samudra
08 Sep 08,, 17:04
If the US can push it through, the US can kill it. The key here is how the US will view any situation.

Sir, the agreements and texts we now have provide for consultations and negotiations regarding ceasing any co-operation. I don't see how we'll be on such bad terms with the US that they'll go around killing the NSG waiver.


Again, this would be dependant on the US and I remind you, the key phrase that they used - through no fault of India's.

Sir, the US can hurt us real bad. Whats new! It was all the same even before we negotiated an agreement. :confused:


I would've thought Kargil and the tolerance of Pakistani activities would've given you a hint.

If I'm reading you right. But for Op.Enduring Freedom Op.Parakram would have blown out into atleast a limited conflict. We were not interested in a conflict when Kargil came around - so no full scale hostilities.

kams
08 Sep 08,, 21:28
It is highly unlikely that consensus was reached without some assurance from Russia and France; they will terminate the trade if India breaks it's voluntary unilateral moratorium on testing. However things may be different if India's tests follow those of major world power..say China.

Burman may publish some of the negotiations that took place at Vienna, once the bill is tabled in US congress. Would be interesting.

At the same time threat of Sanctions will not stop India from testing, should the need arise. Been there, done that!

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 08,, 22:07
Sir, the agreements and texts we now have provide for consultations and negotiations regarding ceasing any co-operation. I don't see how we'll be on such bad terms with the US that they'll go around killing the NSG waiver.

This may be of interest to you.

http://www.npec-web.org/20071005-QFRs-StateIndiaNuclearDealAnswers.pdf


Sir, the US can hurt us real bad. Whats new! It was all the same even before we negotiated an agreement. :confused:For the next 4 years, India has NO leadway. Neither Obama nor McCain views this in favourable terms.


If I'm reading you right. But for Op.Enduring Freedom Op.Parakram would have blown out into atleast a limited conflict. We were not interested in a conflict when Kargil came around - so no full scale hostilities.The point I was trying to make is that being a democracy ain't that much of a protection when it comes to international affairs. The US will always side with itself and views regional situations on its own terms.


It is highly unlikely that consensus was reached without some assurance from Russia and France; they will terminate the trade if India breaks it's voluntary unilateral moratorium on testing. However things may be different if India's tests follow those of major world power..say China.China is a CTBT signatory though they have not ratified the treaty.


Burman may publish some of the negotiations that took place at Vienna, once the bill is tabled in US congress. Would be interesting.

At the same time threat of Sanctions will not stop India from testing, should the need arise. Been there, done that!Except this time, we have it in writing.

Statement by External Affairs Minister of India Shri Pranab Mukherjee on the Civil Nuclear Initiative (http://meaindia.nic.in/pressbriefing/2008/09/05pb01.htm)

kams
08 Sep 08,, 22:30
China is a CTBT signatory though they have not ratified the treaty.

True, but who knows what will happen in future.


Except this time, we have it in writing.

Statement by External Affairs Minister of India Shri Pranab Mukherjee on the Civil Nuclear Initiative (http://meaindia.nic.in/pressbriefing/2008/09/05pb01.htm)

Yes, but 'Supreme National Interest' will over ride all commitments. If testing if imperative, India will test. However it will take extraordinary compulsion bordering on Nations survival to 'force' India to test.

Please also note the reference to universal disarmament. India does have an escape clause there.

OOE are you sure that P-5 themself will not resume testing in next 20 year timeframe?

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 08,, 22:46
The trend has been towards using non-nuclear munitions that would do the job better and cheaper than nukes. At times, these would be a combination of munitions, ie a penetrator immediately followed by a thermobaric. You will note that even the Chinese 2nd Artillery Corps has moved away from a purely nuclear arm to include a missile salvo barrage force.

Nukes will stay but my gut says that no one wants to spend too much money on it.

metric
09 Sep 08,, 00:11
Well, in order to test the reliability of an aged arsenal, you need, well, an aged arsenal.

Yes, I was referring to the "20 years from now" post.
Does NSG waiver prohibit reliability testing?

randhir
09 Sep 08,, 00:16
Nukes will stay but my gut says that no one wants to spend too much money on it.

Engineer, your 'Gut' feelings don't really matter in nuclear equations. Every top nuclear power will spend BILLIONS in keeping, maintaining their stockpile. Laboratory simulations or otherwise.


You will note that even the Chinese 2nd Artillery Corps has moved away from a purely nuclear arm to include a missile salvo barrage force.

Who cares Engineer what the 5th, 10th or 77th Chinese Artillery core does with it's nuclear Arsenal. Maybe the 883344th Chinese artillery core which you have never heard of will compensate in nuclear terms to the 2nd Artillery Corps. Right?

Your logic is fascinating. Seems Chinese are not a threat one bit. :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 00:48
Take 24 hours and do research on what I posted. Don't come back if you don't know how to learn.

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 01:03
The point is that once a waiver is given by concensus, it is very hard to take back, because it will require concensus too. If India tests years down the line, how likely do you think there wouldn't be even a single country among the 45 which will not stick up for india and block the conscensus to redact the waiver? Esp, since many of them would stand to lose billions of dollars? I am not saying Canada won't do anything. But it doesn't matter. Even if 90% of the countries stop nuclear trade after a test, competitive pressures over time will whittle it down as long as there is no multilateral block on trading with India.

Of course what I said above doesn't apply if India mismanages its affairs and becomes a near failed state and an international pariah. But assuming an optimistic future (economically and politically) for India, this is a great deal.

About people, complaining about the economic costs of the deal. The money involved is peanuts compared to India's GDP, its military spending etc. Even if India has to buy reactors at twice the market price from the US (as a backroom quid pro quo), it is only money. Indian politicians spend orders of magnitude more money on silly schemes, and cost the taxpayer much more money by blocking economic reforms.

India should be looking at this deal based on its ramifications over decades not 5 years down the line.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 01:06
The point is that once a waiver is given by concensus, it is very hard to take back, because it will require concensus too. If India tests years down the line, how likely do you think there wouldn't be even a single country among the 45 which will not stick up for india and block the conscensus to redact the waiver? Esp, since many of them would stand to lose billions of dollars? I am not saying Canada won't do anything. But it doesn't matter. Even if 90% of the countries stop nuclear trade after a test, competitive pressures over time will whittle it down as long as there is no multilateral block on trading with India.Check on how the US shoved everybody, including China, aside to get this past. The opposite will also be quite true for the foreseeable future. I, personally, am not going past 10 years since that is way too far into the future and who knows what might happenned. I certainly did not see the Berlin Wall coming down nor do I foresee an idiotic Georgian starting a new Cold War.

saambaarblast
09 Sep 08,, 03:09
This deal may cause India to collapse (http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/08rajeev.htm)


There have been hosannas and hallelujahs aplenty about the fact that the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided to provide a waiver of sorts to India. The fine print is yet to be deciphered, but already the usual suspects are taking credit for having brought about 'energy security in our time.'
I am reminded of Neville Chamberlain, a British prime minister (his other claim to fame was his ever-present umbrella) returning to the UK from a conclave in Munich, where he had participated in appeasing Germany [Images] by giving away the Sudetenland. Chamberlain said: 'My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.'

He said this on September 30, 1938. Alas for him, on September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, and two days later, Britain declared war on Germany. Famous last words, indeed.

But I am being unfair to poor Chamberlain. He honestly believed that he had achieved something for his country. Not so with the bigwigs of the UPA. It has been abundantly clear for a very long time that the so-called nuclear deal stinks to high heaven, and that interests wholly unrelated to India's energy needs are driving the deal. The UPA knows what they are getting into, and they have been lying continuously to the Indian people.

It would be unseemly for me to name names (not to mention unwise, given the propensity of the UPA to cry 'libel' at the drop of a hat -- fortunately, a New Jersey court just threw out a wholly frivolous case filed by overseas acolytes of the UPA, who I do hope will get slapped with large punitive damages), but circumstantial evidence suggests that Jaswant Singh was not far off the mark when he talked about American 'moles' high up in the Indian government.

The confidential letter from the US State Department to the House Foreign Relations Committee, as publicised by Representative Howard Berman, is refreshingly candid about the real facts behind the deal: To use pithy Americanisms, the Indians are being taken to the cleaners. Being sold a bill of goods. Led to the slaughter. Being totally sold snake-oil, with the active connivance of their leaders.

Perhaps the apt historical analogy is not Chamberlain, but the East India Company. Or better yet, the capitulation to China over Tibet [Images]. India gave away its substantial treaty rights in Tibet to China in return for... vague promises of brotherhood. Here India is giving away its hard-won nuclear deterrent, the one thing that prevents the Chinese from running totally rampant in Asia, in return for... honeyed words from the Americans about strategic partnership!

I exaggerate, of course. There must be more. Nehru, being naive, believed in the bhai-bhai thing with China. But today's leaders are hard-boiled, and are doing this for other, very good reasons. What these reasons are, we shall never know, notwithstanding the Right To Information Act. The Indian government is extremely good at obfuscation.

What is being celebrated as a Great Victory (over what I am not sure) at the NSG is a little puzzling. I hate to be the little boy who asked about the Emperor's new clothes, but what exactly is India getting? After all the huffing and puffing, India has now been given the privilege of spending enormous amounts of money -- absolute billions -- to buy nuclear fission reactors and uranium? This is a good thing? Let us remember that the NSG was set up in 1974 as a secret cabal to punish India for its first nuclear test.

There is an old proverb in Malayalam about spending good money to buy a dog that then proceeds to bite you. India is now going to buy all these dangerous fission reactors from the US and France [Images] and Japan [Images] and spend $30 billion to $40 billion to be left with the possibility of Australians and Americans holding the Damocles' Sword of a disruptions in uranium supplies over us? This is better than being held hostage by OPEC over fossil fuels?

And if all goes well, India will be left holding the bag for absolute mountains of extremely dangerous and long-lived (10,000 years, say) radioactive waste, which we will not be allowed to reprocess in case we might extract something useful out of it. Of course all the reactors and the radioactive waste must be making our friendly neighbourhood terrorists rub their hands with glee in anticipation. Did I mention something about giving someone a stick to beat you with?

I think it should be obvious by now that India has been coerced into de facto accession to the NPT, the CTBT, the FMCT, and all the other alphabet-soup treaties that were set up to keep India muzzled. America's non-proliferation ayatollahs, barring a last-minute reprieve like the US Congress voting down the 123 Agreement (I am tempted to chant 'Berman saranam, Markey saranam,' etc) have accomplished 'cap, rollback, and eliminate'.

The letter leaked by Berman, as well as the fact that Article 2 of the 123 Agreement explicitly states that 'national laws' (read: The Hyde Amendment, with the clever little Barack Obama [Images] Amendment -- yes, Virginia, Obama did get his fingers into this pie too) govern the 123 Agreement, clarify that India is at the mercy of any US administration that sees fit to unilaterally abrogate the thing. Remember Tarapur? There was a similar little artifice of domestic legislation that was used to weasel out of a binding international treaty. The 123 Agreement is really not worth the paper it's written on.

Let us note that of the other hold-outs to the NPT, nobody is putting any pressure on Israel to sign anything, and they are getting all the fuel they need from sugar-daddy America; and Pakistan gets everything, including their bombs and their missiles, from their main squeeze China, while minor sugar-daddy America beams indulgently.

The sad part is that none of this does a thing for the only issue that matters, India's energy security. While the rest of the world has, rightly, looked upon the nuclear deal as a non-proliferation issue, the propaganda experts in India have sold it to the gullible public as a way of gaining energy independence. Alas, this is not true at all.

Here are a few facts about energy. I am indebted to, among others, the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (STEP) in Bangalore for this information.

Present world energy use: 15 terawatt-years per year

Potential availability of energy from different sources (in terawatt-years) (Source: Harvard)

Oil and Gas: 3000
Coal: 5000
Uranium (conventional reactors): 2000
Uranium (breeder reactors): 2,000,000
Solar: 30,000 (per year)

Do note that last two numbers. One, solar energy accessible per year far exceeds the sum energy available from fossil fuels and uranium-fission reactors in toto, that is, by exhausting them. Two, breeder reactors can leverage thorium (turned into uranium-233) endlessly by creating more fuel than is exhausted, but the technology will take time.

Now, take a look at the amount of energy India generates, and how it is used up (Source: CSTEP and Lawrence Livermore Labs)

Total consumption: 5,721 billion kwh, of which:

Lost energy: 3,257 billion kwh
Useful energy: 2,364 billion kwh
Generation is from:

Hydro: 84
Wind: 5
Solar: 0
Nuclear: 58
Bio-fuels: 1682
Coal: 1852
Natural Gas: 225
Petroleum: 1645
Usage is by:

Unaccounted electricity: 99
Agriculture: 301
Residential: 1511
Commercial: 132
Industrial: 1548
Light Vehicles: 132
Heavy Vehicles: 330
Aircraft: 65
Railways: 43
I believe the data is for 2005. What is startling is the enormous amount of wasted energy: more than the amount of useful energy. Besides, unaccounted for electricity is almost the same as the amount of energy used up by all air and railroad traffic in India! Thus, the very first thing that can pay huge dividends would be to get better accounting for energy use and to reduce wastage (as for example due to traffic congestion in cities).

Consider the capital costs of various types of energy: (Source: CSTEP)

Natural Gas: $600/kW with 4-10cents/kWh in fuel costs
Plus cost of pipelines and LNG terminals
Wind: $1200/kW
Plus cost of transmission lines from windy regions
Hydro: n/a
Biomass: n/a
Coal: $1135/kW and 4c/kWh in fuel costs
With CO2 cleanup: $2601/kW and 22c/kWh in fuel costs
Plus cost of railroads and other infrastructure
Solar Thermal: $4000/kW
Solar Photovoltaic: $6000/kW
Nuclear Fission: $3000/kW and 8c/kWh in fuel costs
Plus cost of radioactive waste disposal
(Source: World Nuclear Association, The Economics of Nuclear Power)
It can be seen that the cost of nuclear power is quite high, even if the costs of waste management are discounted. In addition, there has to be a substantial risk premium for the fact that the raw material is in short supply and is under the control of a cartel. A 'uranium shock' can be far more painful than the recent oil-shock, because it will simply mean the shuttering of a lot of the expensive plants acquired at extortionate prices.

All things considered, including the impact on the environment and carbon footprint, solar is the most sensible route for India. The capital costs for solar will come down significantly as new thin-film technology reduces the manufacturing cost, and conversion efficiency rises -- 40 per cent has been accomplished in the lab. Besides, if you look at the fully loaded cost, that is taking into account the gigantic public outlay already incurred for fossil fuels (as an example, there is a pipeline running 20 km out to see at Cochin Refineries so that large tankers can deliver oil without coming close to shore), solar is currently not very overpriced.

And, of course, you cannot beat the price of fuel: free, no need to get any certificates from the NSG, available in plenty for at least 300 days of the year. If large solar farms are set up in a few places (they may be 10km x 10km in size, and surely this can be put up in arid areas like the Thar desert), then solar energy is likely to be attractive. Besides, there will be economies of scale in manufacturing once demand is seeded by subsidies and tax breaks. Large-scale solar plants are becoming a reality: two giant solar farms, totally 880 MW, have just been approved by Pacific Gas and Electric in California: This is a huge step considering the largest solar plant in the US now is just 14 MW.

In addition, there are technological breakthroughs just around the corner in solar energy, as venture money is flowing into alternative energy. If only India were to invest in solar research and subsidies the billions that the UPA wants to spend on imported white elephant fission technology, India will truly gain energy independence.

The entire nuclear deal is a red-herring and a diversion. It is a colossal blunder; and when this is coming at such an enormous cost -- loss of the independent nuclear deterrent and intrusive inspection of the nuclear setup, which happy proliferator China is not subject to -- this is perhaps the worst act any government has taken since independence.

The UPA is subjecting India to colonialism. The beneficiaries are China, Pakistan, and the US.

This deal may well mark the tipping point that causes India to collapse: Without a nuclear deterrent, India is a sitting duck for Chinese blackmail including the proposed diversion of the Brahmaputra, for Pakistani-fomented insurrections, and Bangladeshi demographic invasion. India must be the very first large State in history that has consciously and voluntarily decided to dismantle itself.


Rajeev Srinivasan


A more alarmist article on the issue. The author seems to have too much faith on alternate fuels being available in the near future. But general concerns about the ramifications from this deal merits some thought.

zraver
09 Sep 08,, 03:43
This deal may cause India to collapse (http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/08rajeev.htm)




A more alarmist article on the issue. The author seems to have too much faith on alternate fuels being available in the near future. But general concerns about the ramifications from this deal merits some thought.

I still think the deal is only and until the EU federalizes and the UK/Fr seats merge and India gets a P5 spot and official NWS status.

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 05:27
Check on how the US shoved everybody, including China, aside to get this past. The opposite will also be quite true for the foreseeable future. I, personally, am not going past 10 years since that is way too far into the future and who knows what might happenned. I certainly did not see the Berlin Wall coming down nor do I foresee an idiotic Georgian starting a new Cold War.

I agree with you that the deal wouldnot have passed without the US pushing for it. But there were many other factors going for the deal too.

For getting the concensus for getting the deal approved, almost every country's economic interests aligned with getting the deal approved. Once the deal is approved many companies in various powerful countries get to sell India nuclear stuff, and they probably lobbied their govts. Also it is in nobody interest to put themselves at a disadvantage with regards to a potentially large market like India. The only interest working against the deal was the "high minded" interest in preventing non-proliferation. Even in this case, I think the NPT is fundamentally flawed and discriminatory. (Nobody much talks about P5's promise to eliminate nuclear weapons in the NPT).

If the deal has to be reversed by concensus, most of these factors work in reverse. India would lobby hard against it, using all the economic power it has. Approving the waiver threatened no country's vital interests (although China was unenthusiastic about the deal, I don't think it felt its vital national interests were threatened) like it would threaten India's if the waiver were to be redacted. Also many countries would have economic interests in keeping the waiver in place. Even the US might not press too hard to redact the waiver because many powerful US companies might be expected to lobby hard against it. (This is one reason I think the Indian govt would give a significant number of contracts to US companies, even if they are not the most cost effective).

So while reversing the waiver might not be impossible, it would be much tougher than getting it approved.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 05:37
Even in this case, I think the NPT is fundamentally flawed and discriminatory. (Nobody much talks about P5's promise to eliminate nuclear weapons in the NPT).The evidence points the other way. We've gone from a 50,000+ active nukes to less than 5,000.


If the deal has to be reversed by concensus, most of these factors work in reverse. India would lobby hard against it, using all the economic power it has. Approving the waiver threatened no country's vital interests (although China was unenthusiastic about the deal, I don't think it felt its vital national interests were threatened) like it would threaten India's if the waiver were to be redacted. Also many countries would have economic interests in keeping the waiver in place. Even the US might not press too hard to redact the waiver because many powerful US companies might be expected to lobby hard against it. (This is one reason I think the Indian govt would give a significant number of contracts to US companies, even if they are not the most cost effective).The only thing I can see is that there will be just enough fuel to keep the reactors from going cold. Otherwise, economic incentives has never replaced national strategic interest. Not once.


So while reversing the waiver might not be impossible, it would be much tougher than getting it approved.I doubt it. The feedback that we're getting here is that the NSG will not tolerate another test. The wording seems to just be enough to allow India to accept the deal. If India were to test tomorrow, the deal dies tomorrow. I don't know about 25 years from now though.

kuku
09 Sep 08,, 05:57
Guess its not that far into the future that many local tech companies start striking deals with US, Russian, Canadian, French companies.

Many tech firms have been coming out and saying how glad they are that they will have access to all the tech that was banned. (would they?).


I think if the government had to test they would have tested a long time ago.

Exactly what type of technology/hardware etc. etc. was banned from being imported to india?

Is this whole thing an excuse to get the Ban on technology transfer lifted?

No government could sign the CTBT or the NPT, that is just not in line with what the nation thinks.

And how will the division between the civilian and military nuclear infra be decided upon?

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 06:04
The evidence points the other way. We've gone from a 50,000+ active nukes to less than 5,000.

The NPT talks about eliminating nuclear weapons. Do you really believe that the P5 would give up nuclear weapons? If you do, I think our outlook on geopolitics differ fundamentally.

Btw, I don't care about how many nuclear weapons India has, or even how reliable they are. The deterrant effect works as long as a potential adversary knows that there is a significant chance of retaliation. In 1962, airstrikes on Delhi would have been in the realm of possibility (cold war aside). With India possesing a small number of (potentially unreliable) weapons, even if there is a border war with the Chinese it is unlikely to escalate.

I support Indian nuclear weapons purely for the above deterant effect. Aside from that I believe India's interests are with pursuing trade with the world in dual use items etc. Indian scientific research (eg, space technology) is held back by the sanctions on dual use items. Therefore I personally wouldn't support another nuclear test by India (unless circumstances change significantly).



The only thing I can see is that there will be just enough fuel to keep the reactors from going cold. Otherwise, economic incentives has never replaced national strategic interest. Not once.


What I was saying was that mostly strategic interest works for the deal. Upholding NPT is not in any country's strategic interest. The benefits of NPT is universal (ie, accrue to all countries equally, whether they cheat or not), while the costs are individual. Look at how hard it is to get climate change deals (Kyoto protocol) through, even though no country's vital national interests are threatened and all stand to benefit.



I doubt it. The feedback that we're getting here is that the NSG will not tolerate another test. The wording seems to just be enough to allow India to accept the deal. If India were to test tomorrow, the deal dies tomorrow. I don't know about 25 years from now though.

I guess Canada is doing a good job of selling the deal to the Canadian public, just like the Indian govt did of selling it to the Indian public :)

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 06:16
The NPT talks about eliminating nuclear weapons. Do you really believe that the P5 would give up nuclear weapons? If you do, I think our outlook on geopolitics differ fundamentally.The NPT does not stipulate a time limit. There has been more than enough evidence that all N5 has disarmed. Tactical nuclear weapons are no longer being deployed and the strategic arms controls have reduced world wide nuclear numbers from 50,000 to less than 5,000 though there are close to 15,000 in component form that are not classified as operational nuclear warheads. Say what you will but the N5 has produced more than their fair commitment to the NPT.


Btw, I don't care about how many nuclear weapons India has, or even how reliable they are. The deterrant effect works as long as a potential adversary knows that there is a significant chance of retaliation. In 1962, airstrikes on Delhi would have been in the realm of possibility (cold war aside). With India possesing a small number of (potentially unreliable) weapons, even if there is a border war with the Chinese it is unlikely to escalate.And if the Chinese goes the conventional route? Did you noticed that Baghdad was hit with 700 cruise missiles? Do you know that the Chinese can easily shift their 1400+ missiles from aiming to Taiwan to aiming at India? There's a reason why we're moving away from nuclear weapons. Precision is becoming the tool of choice.


I support Indian nuclear weapons purely for the above deterant effect. Aside from that I believe India's interests are with pursuing trade with the world in dual use items etc. Indian scientific research (eg, space technology) is held back by the sanctions on dual use items. Therefore I personally wouldn't support another nuclear test by India (unless circumstances change significantly).The only reasonable pressure to test is the reliability of the aged arsenal. All N5 powers have collected data in their final tests before their CTBT obligations kicked in.

Other than that, considering that all 5 N5 powers are concentrating on precision weaponry instead of nukes, that India would test strongly suggests that she is militarily behind the times.

I have posted whole articles on why the Chinese favour conventional warheads over nuclear ones.


What I was saying was that mostly strategic interest works for the deal. Upholding NPT is not in any country's strategic interest. The benefits of NPT is universal (ie, accrue to all countries equally, whether they cheat or not), while the costs are individual.The NPT is what kept WWIII from happening between China and Russia. It allowed Russia an out to keep the Chinese arsenal at bay instead of a full fledged nuclear strike across to Lop Nor.


Look at how hard it is to get climate change deals (Kyoto protocol) through, even though no country's vital national interests are threatened and all stand to benefit.You're joking me. You want me to pay you not to burn your wood so that I could burn my wood. Actually, this one is even better. You want me to pay you so that my horses can f_art.


I guess Canada is doing a good job of selling the deal to the Canadian public, just like the Indian govt did of selling it to the Indian public :)If you have not noticed, my eyes and ears are not on what the Canadian public sees and hears.

kuku
09 Sep 08,, 06:16
Thermal-hydel that seems to be the major power sources for a long time to come, solar-wind is just too damn expensive (a little less so due to carbon credits).

Nuclear can fill in a gap, however at what cost? the current figues for Rupees spent producing per MW of power are not given out in public, so who knows, i hope this whole civilian and military nuclear power thing makes the parliament come out with exactly how much the nukes really cost.

As the above given article says


Let us note that of the other hold-outs to the NPT, nobody is putting any pressure on Israel to sign anything, and they are getting all the fuel they need from sugar-daddy America; and Pakistan gets everything, including their bombs and their missiles, from their main squeeze China, while minor sugar-daddy America beams indulgently.


In this scenario no better thing than the nuclear agreement, we do not accept that only a few nations have the right to balckmail others with nukes (not that there is anyone we could blackmail) and we get some fuel like above mentioned Pakistan and Israel.

kuku
09 Sep 08,, 06:22
And if the Chinese goes the conventional route? Did you noticed that Baghdad was hit with 700 cruise missiles? Do you know that the Chinese can easily shift their 1400+ missiles from aiming to Taiwan to aiming at India? There's a reason why we're moving away from nuclear weapons. Precision is becoming the tool of choice.

Dont know about that sir, no matter how many missiles go off near 10 meters of the mountains, they seem to be very cold, very high and very narrow.

A conventional war (from what i have read here) requires boots on the ground occupying ground to be of value, especially in case of two XL sized nations.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 06:40
Reverse slope. That's a problem for nukes as well.

However, you're missing the point. The point is that the N5 has moved away from counting on nukes in any military significant way. We have removed the nuclear A2A and SAM systems in the 70s. We have removed tac nukes in the 90s/today - not because we've became saints but because we found something better.

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 06:42
The NPT does not stipulate a time limit.

I guess having promise with no deadline is as bogus as the "voluntary test ban commitment" India gave to secure the deal. Anyway all this doesn't make NPT a fair or moral treaty.



And if the Chinese goes the conventional route? Did you noticed that Baghdad was hit with 700 cruise missiles? Do you know that the Chinese can easily shift their 1400+ missiles from aiming to Taiwan to aiming at India? There's a reason why we're moving away from nuclear weapons. Precision is becoming the tool of choice.


I am not sure what you are saying here. If Taiwan had nuclear weapons, does the chance of a conventional attack on Taiwan go up or down?

Having a small nuclear arsenal would likely prevent an conventional attack on Delhi by China. That is why India cannot sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.



The only reasonable pressure to test is the reliability of the aged arsenal. All N5 powers have collected data in their final tests before their CTBT obligations kicked in.


I agree.



Other than that, considering that all 5 N5 powers are concentrating on precision weaponry instead of nukes, that India would test strongly suggests that she is militarily behind the times.


I agree, India has conducted only a few tests as opposed to hundreds by the P5. As I mentioned before, India's interest is not in having a cutting edge nuclear arsenal, but in trade with the world.



I have posted whole articles on why the Chinese favour conventional warheads over nuclear ones.


India's needs might not be the same as China's. India doesnot have to build up an arsenal to invade Taiwan.



The NPT is what kept WWIII from happening between China and Russia. It allowed Russia an out to keep the Chinese arsenal at bay instead of a full fledged nuclear strike across to Lop Nor.


That is debatable. The US didn't attack the Soviet Union before or just after they got their weapons. And this was way before NPT was conceived.

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 06:47
Reverse slope. That's a problem for nukes as well.

However, you're missing the point. The point is that the N5 has moved away from counting on nukes in any military significant way. We have removed the nuclear A2A and SAM systems in the 70s. We have removed tac nukes in the 90s/today - not because we've became saints but because we found something better.

I guess we are in agreement that counting the number of nuclear weapons is pretty silly. This applies especially in India's case. 10 nuclear weapons would do the job just like 1000 would. That is why I think this is a great deal for India. It allows it to keep a small arsenal, and trade with the world at the same time.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 06:50
I guess having promise with no deadline is as bogus as the "voluntary test ban commitment" India gave to secure the deal. Anyway all this doesn't make NPT a fair or moral treaty.Everyone signed with their eyes opened. However, you cannot say that the world has not seen disarmament.


I am not sure what you are saying here. If Taiwan had nuclear weapons, does the chance of a conventional attack on Taiwan go up or down?Up.


Having a small nuclear arsenal would likely prevent an conventional attack on Delhi by China. That is why India cannot sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.And invite a nuclear scenario.


I agree, India has conducted only a few tests as opposed to hundreds by the P5. As I mentioned before, India's interest is not in having a cutting edge nuclear arsenal, but in trade with the world.You could've fooled me. There is pressure to test. To verify the MIRV designs.


India's needs might not be the same as China's. India doesnot have to build up an arsenal to invade Taiwan.India needs to keep her options opened. She has to have another option besides nuclear. Indian missiles are not hardened. With those 1400 missiles as a conventional strike, the Chinese in theory could destroy Indian delivery vehicles without resorting to nuclear systems.


That is debatable. The US didn't attack the Soviet Union before or just after they got their weapons. And this was way before NPT was conceived.That's because she didn't have enough of them.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 06:51
I guess we are in agreement that counting the number of nuclear weapons is pretty silly. This applies especially in India's case. 10 nuclear weapons would do the job just like 1000 would. That is why I think this is a great deal for India. It allows it to keep a small arsenal, and trade with the world at the same time.I've stood the wall at a time of 50,000 nuclear warheads and it was anything but silly.

The One
09 Sep 08,, 06:56
India needs to keep her options opened. She has to have another option besides nuclear. Indian missiles are not hardened. With those 1400 missiles as a conventional strike, the Chinese in theory could destroy Indian delivery vehicles without resorting to nuclear systems.

Other option means ATV here?

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 07:08
Up.


Let us agree to disagree.



India needs to keep her options opened. She has to have another option besides nuclear. Indian missiles are not hardened. With those 1400 missiles as a conventional strike, the Chinese in theory could destroy Indian delivery vehicles without resorting to nuclear systems.


If the US with half a trillion in military spending cannot not be sure of eliminating Iranian nuclear facilities by a first strike, I doubt China can be sure of eliminating India's nuclear weapons on a first strike.

Besides India and China doesnot have disputes which are so fundamental to their core national interests that either would risk nuclear retaliation by having airstrikes deep into the others territory. Of course this doesn't preclude minor border wars like Kargil.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 07:14
If the US with half a trillion in military spending cannot not be sure of eliminating Iranian nuclear facilities by a first strike,I have absolutely no idea where you get that. There's only one way the Iranians can produce a nuke after a US strike ... and that is if the US stops striking.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 07:15
Other option means ATV here?Anything to keep it from the use-it-or-lose-it option.

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 07:20
Apart from the military implications to the nuclear deal, I think it is great that India is expanding its strategic cooperation with the US. Both are multicultural democracies. I think India would be more comfortable dealing with the US (unlike Russia or China) because it is easier to understand the democratic and mostly open process which go into making US policy. This avoids nasty surprises. It further helps that the US and India doesn't share a common border (and border disputes).

Just like China cozyed up with the US as an insurance policy against the Soviet Union, India needs powerful friends just in case.

Samudra
09 Sep 08,, 08:49
This may be of interest to you.

http://www.npec-web.org/20071005-QFR...ealAnswers.pdf

That letters tells us nothing new, Sir! We shall ask the US to respect their promises, and ultimately we know co-operation would cease. That they won't respect a sovereign treaty is their fault. We'll take their sanctions.

We will build reserves, and they would give us a 1 year notice before they ask us to return whatever they gave us. And that would be when consultations don't lead to any mutually acceptable solutions.

Although it sounds nice 'automatic termination' of nuclear co-operation does not scare me enough!


For the next 4 years, India has NO leadway. Neither Obama nor McCain views this in favourable terms.

Sir, we will have to deal with whoever lives in the White House. That is not a merit or demerit but an unchanging fact.


The point I was trying to make is that being a democracy ain't that much of a protection when it comes to international affairs. The US will always side with itself and views regional situations on its own terms.

Sir, then they lose the moral right to question us. This means we shall pursue our interests just as the US shall.

I don't buy your argument about NPT helping disarmament. Gradual improvement in delivery accuracy and rising costs have helped both US and others realize holding thousands of nuclear weapons is futile. The end of cold war and other mutual treaties like START have their share of credit. They disarm in their interest. Besides, why not come sit down with us and discuss global nuclear disarmament!


Except this time, we have it in writing.

Statement by External Affairs Minister of India Shri Pranab Mukherjee on the Civil Nuclear Initiative

Colonel, nowhere in the statement does it say India will remain committed to the voluntary moratorium perpetually. The statement merely states the fact that India remains committed. We could change our minds after five years. We never told you we won't change our minds after five years, did we? :confused: :biggrin:

At the end of the day - international agreements are always complex and with inter-linking guarantees. Lets discuss termination when it comes.

Deltacamelately
09 Sep 08,, 09:45
Major,

I would not count the NSG out. Those are major stake holders, including the very moral voice of Japan. They are the only ones who suffered a nuclear attack. The very fact that this group came out and stated that they will kill the Waiver if India test is very significant, least of all because they are stating up front that they are relying on your own country's signed statements that you will not test.

Also, we have historic precedence. Canada walked away from $billions when you tested in 1974. We threw away $billions when Tianamen Square happened. We rather suffer an oil embargo rather than let Israel stand alone. Money is not good enough reason to say we won't act.

As to why we want to support this Waiver. A good friend told me today, can you imagine the price of oil if India didn't go nuclear?
Sir,
I understand what you said.
Japan, Canada may demand a ban, but there has to be a consensus and I don't see everybody 100% commited and agreeing. Are you confident that with billions at stake Russia or say France will not buy India's "we did it for this...this reasons..." line?
Based on the track record, I concede, Canada may walk off. Japan has undergone the holocaust, they might as well walk off, US with the Hyde Acts bindings also might walk off, but where is the consensus?
Based on Russia's track record, I doubt they would forfeight their billions.

pravin
09 Sep 08,, 10:02
Sir,
I understand what you said.
Japan, Canada may demand a ban, but there has to be a consensus and I don't see everybody 100% commited and agreeing. Are you confident that with billions at stake Russia or say France will not buy India's "we did it for this...this reasons..." line?
Based on the track record, I concede, Canada may walk off. Japan has undergone the holocaust, they might as well walk off, US with the Hyde Acts bindings also might walk off, but where is the consensus?
Based on Russia's track record, I doubt they would forfeight their billions.
And Russia is not having the best of relations with the US nowadays

Sumku
09 Sep 08,, 10:15
Sir,
I understand what you said.
Japan, Canada may demand a ban, but there has to be a consensus and I don't see everybody 100% commited and agreeing. Are you confident that with billions at stake Russia or say France will not buy India's "we did it for this...this reasons..." line?
Based on the track record, I concede, Canada may walk off. Japan has undergone the holocaust, they might as well walk off, US with the Hyde Acts bindings also might walk off, but where is the consensus?
Based on Russia's track record, I doubt they would forfeight their billions.

Just a Question here.Why are we so worried about what Japan feels.Japan to me is just taking a moral high ground,which it does not deserve to do.If they want to take a moral high ground, then they should shun the US's Nuclear Umbrella, and then face China. I doubt how long they would last.

Samudra
09 Sep 08,, 10:49
Ohh and Japan should put everything they have on IAEA full scope safeguards as well. So much for the moral grandstanding.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 12:58
That letters tells us nothing new, Sir! We shall ask the US to respect their promises, and ultimately we know co-operation would cease. That they won't respect a sovereign treaty is their fault. We'll take their sanctions.They are respecting a sovereign treaty. The link shows American understanding of what they negotiated with India.


We will build reserves, and they would give us a 1 year notice before they ask us to return whatever they gave us. And that would be when consultations don't lead to any mutually acceptable solutions.You've missed the key phrase there - "through no fault of India's."


Although it sounds nice 'automatic termination' of nuclear co-operation does not scare me enough!Now, why should it scare you? All we're discussing are the i's and the t's which surely must have been made aware to the Indian delegation. The only thing I am stating is that the Indian delegation entered this without any blinders.


Sir, we will have to deal with whoever lives in the White House. That is not a merit or demerit but an unchanging fact.It is a demerit when the whims of a sitting President can change the application of a treaty.


Sir, then they lose the moral right to question us. This means we shall pursue our interests just as the US shall.Morality is in the eye of the beholder but just be advised on whom you're going up against.


I don't buy your argument about NPT helping disarmament. Gradual improvement in delivery accuracy and rising costs have helped both US and others realize holding thousands of nuclear weapons is futile. The end of cold war and other mutual treaties like START have their share of credit. They disarm in their interest.That is evident, is it not? However, you're missing the fact that the majority of the nuclear weapons capable countries come under the NPT. Do you not think that Canada and Poland could have a very advance nuclear arsenal within a year?


Besides, why not come sit down with us and discuss global nuclear disarmament!Because you've got nothing to offer.


Colonel, nowhere in the statement does it say India will remain committed to the voluntary moratorium perpetually. The statement merely states the fact that India remains committed. We could change our minds after five years. We never told you we won't change our minds after five years, did we? :confused: :biggrin:The Waiver directly references this statement.


At the end of the day - international agreements are always complex and with inter-linking guarantees. Lets discuss termination when it comes.Where's the fun in that? At the end of the day, neither you nor I have any say in the Waiver, 123, or the Hyde Act.


Sir,
I understand what you said.
Japan, Canada may demand a ban, but there has to be a consensus and I don't see everybody 100% commited and agreeing. Are you confident that with billions at stake Russia or say France will not buy India's "we did it for this...this reasons..." line?
Based on the track record, I concede, Canada may walk off. Japan has undergone the holocaust, they might as well walk off, US with the Hyde Acts bindings also might walk off, but where is the consensus?
Based on Russia's track record, I doubt they would forfeight their billions.Major, Germany and France were each other's largest trading partner before WWII. No one toed OPEC's line in their embargo. I have not seen one case in history where economic incentives overruled strategic necessities.

And neither France nor Russia is interested in a renew arms race in South Asia.

And could you provide me with a "good reason" to test? Thus far, I can't think of one. Militarily speaking, we have moved away from nukes. Tac nukes are a thing of the past. Thus far, I'm reading national pride as the main reason more than any military necessity.


And Russia is not having the best of relations with the US nowadaysNo one is walking away from any treaty at the moment.


Just a Question here.Why are we so worried about what Japan feels.Japan to me is just taking a moral high ground,which it does not deserve to do.If they want to take a moral high ground, then they should shun the US's Nuclear Umbrella, and then face China. I doubt how long they would last.I have seen estimates that Japan could be a nuclear weapons holder within 3 months, a year on the outside.


Ohh and Japan should put everything they have on IAEA full scope safeguards as well. So much for the moral grandstanding.Their materials are.

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 15:49
For the next 4 years, India has NO leadway. Neither Obama nor McCain views this in favourable terms.


Where do you get this? Both Obama and McCain support the deal.

"John McCain Supports The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Accord. This accord strengthens our relationship with the world's largest democracy and further involves India in the fight against proliferation. John McCain will actively engage both India and Pakistan to improve the security of their nuclear stockpiles and weapons materials."
JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008 (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/74797D36-8FE4-449A-B760-CCAE5E866C99.htm)

"I voted for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement because India is a strong democracy and a natural strategic partner for the U.S. in the 21st century," he told Outlook magazine, according to a transcript provided by the magazine Friday.
Obama: would not change India nuclear deal now | Top News | Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-34476220080712)

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 08,, 15:54
Where do you get this? Both Obama and McCain support the deal.The reference was in regards to testing.

mthambi
09 Sep 08,, 16:10
The reference was in regards to testing.

Oh, okay. India would be shooting itself in the foot if it tests in the next 4 years.

Deltacamelately
10 Sep 08,, 06:12
Major, Germany and France were each other's largest trading partner before WWII. No one toed OPEC's line in their embargo. I have not seen one case in history where economic incentives overruled strategic necessities.
Sir,
US wooed Chinese market all the time knowing that a ressurgent China will challenge her in the next few decades.


And neither France nor Russia is interested in a renew arms race in South Asia.
Sir,
Russia's belligerent attitude of late is an opposite indicator.

And could you provide me with a "good reason" to test? Thus far, I can't think of one. Militarily speaking, we have moved away from nukes. Tac nukes are a thing of the past. Thus far, I'm reading national pride as the main reason more than any military necessity.
This Sir, I conceded a couple of posts back that its simply not in India's interest to test in the near future. India tested a decade back and has sufficient data with her successful/failed detonations to keep her simulation systems busy for atleat a decade or two.


No one is walking away from any treaty at the moment.
That's true Sir.
However the argument is all about India's liberty to test again, if required and in supreme national interest.


I have seen estimates that Japan could be a nuclear weapons holder within 3 months, a year on the outside.
Sir,
Then that places Japan in the same league as that of India in the 60s, for which you argued that India had a clandestine weapon design program running parallel to her civilian program. You claimed that India was in a position to detonate a device in 6-9 months. 3 Months for Japan is much stronger indication of a live weaponisation program.

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 08,, 06:27
Sir,
US wooed Chinese market all the time knowing that a ressurgent China will challenge her in the next few decades.Better talked to Major Shek about this one. He's the economic expert but it's cheaper for the Chinese to do their part which increases American power. I know. Hard to grasb. Talk to him about that.


Sir,
Russia's belligerent attitude of late is an opposite indicator.Unless Putin is going to change Russian law, the Russians are also legally bound to impose sanctions.


This Sir, I conceded a couple of posts back that its simply not in India's interest to test in the near future. India tested a decade back and has sufficient data with her successful/failed detonations to keep her simulation systems busy for atleat a decade or two.The only reason I can accept for testing is to verify the Indian aged arsenal in about 20 years. But other than that, I can't think of a reason.


Then that places Japan in the same league as that of India in the 60s, for which you argued that India had a clandestine weapon design program running parallel to her civilian program. You claimed that India was in a position to detonate a device in 6-9 months. 3 Months for Japan is much stronger indication of a live weaponisation program.The difference, Major, is that Japan had access to American designs and data.

mthambi
10 Sep 08,, 06:42
Better talked to Major Shek about this one. He's the economic expert but it's cheaper for the Chinese to do their part which increases American power. I know. Hard to grasb. Talk to him about that.


What matters is relative power. It is obvious that China benefited much more from US-China trade over the last 3 decades than the US benefited from China. It would have been very hard for the Chinese (or for that matter Japan, or South Korea) to pursue an export oriented development strategy without an large low tariff open market like the US.

Btw, what is your overall point? Are you saying the deal was bad from India's point of view? (I have just been arguing that is was good for India). Whether it is a net positive for NPT is unclear, but then I don't care too much for such a flawed and discriminatory treaty like the NPT.

The One
10 Sep 08,, 10:55
SOURCE:- The Hindu : Front Page : “Waiver offers opportunity for nuclear exports” (http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/10/stories/2008091055651200.htm)

Waiver offers opportunity for nuclear exports

R. Prasad

Big potential for India: NPCIL Chairman

“Reactors can be manufactured at a lower cost here”

We should tie up with fuel supplying countries: S.K. Jain

CHENNAI: The waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group provides a great opportunity for India to become a major exporter of critical and non-critical nuclear components to both the developed and developing countries.

“There is limited manufacturing capacity in the world today,” said S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

India already has 100 per cent capacity to manufacture all components of a Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), he pointed out.

In the case of the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR), India has the capacity to manufacture 40 per cent of the critical components, 50 per cent capacity to manufacture turbines, generators and other auxiliaries, and about 80 per cent capacity with respect to other components.

“But the real attraction is the lower cost when reactors are manufactured here. It will be 20-25 per cent cheaper when they are manufactured in India,” Mr. Jain said.

With more than 30 countries seriously looking at the PWRs, the opportunity for India to become a manufacturing hub was promising. Developing countries were looking at small and medium-size reactors.

“We do not have the capacity to manufacture the reactor vessel and other critical components for a PWR. But we can fabricate them by importing some parts,” he said.

“We jointly assessed our capability and found that we can upgrade our facilities to manufacture all the parts for a 1000-1600 MW PWRs with proper technological tie-ups,” he said.

The joint assessment involved NPCIL and companies such as Areva of France and General Electric of the U.S.

No such import of any parts was required for the manufacture of PHWR reactors, as the Indian industry was fully equipped to manufacture all components.

“We are a very strong contender for small (300 MW) and medium (600-700 MW) size reactors. India is the only country in the world to have a vibrant industry to manufacture a PHWR. So there is a big potential for us,” he said.
Word of caution

But with the possibility of enriching plutonium when the PHWRs are used, India should be more careful to which country it was exporting. “It would be safe to export these reactors to countries that have no existing nuclear programme.”

Mr. Jain said supplying reactors to developing countries alone would not suffice.

“We should have joint tie-ups with fuel supplying countries for the programme to take off.” Such a tie-up may not be required when countries already arranged for fuel supply.

Deltacamelately
10 Sep 08,, 10:57
Better talked to Major Shek about this one. He's the economic expert but it's cheaper for the Chinese to do their part which increases American power. I know. Hard to grasb. Talk to him about that.
Sir,
Its indeed hard to grasp, specially in absence of a minuted draft.
However, I concede I do not understand economics very well. May be some day I will shake it up with the Major.

Unless Putin is going to change Russian law, the Russians are also legally bound to impose sanctions.
And what can stop him from ammending the law if it is Russia's economic or strategic interest? The Russian are not to pleased with India inching close to the US.

The only reason I can accept for testing is to verify the Indian aged arsenal in about 20 years. But other than that, I can't think of a reason.
True.
India won't go for the tests, unless ofcourse something untoward happens.
However, santions or no sanctions, nothing stops her as well.

The difference, Major, is that Japan had access to American designs and data.
Another afternoon in this imperfect and biased world. ;)

Samudra
10 Sep 08,, 13:12
You've missed the key phrase there - "through no fault of India's."

Colonel,

It's a matter of interpretation/perception. Suppose a rogue nation/entity were to cause extreme deterioration of security situation thereby forcing India to test - THAT is no fault of India's. ;)


The only thing I am stating is that the Indian delegation entered this without any blinders.

I believe coming this far was tough enough. Our hands remain tied vis a vis domestic laws/practices. Although this should work both ways...we know the US is da superpower. Baby steps, Colonel, Baby steps.


However, you're missing the fact that the majority of the nuclear weapons capable countries come under the NPT. Do you not think that Canada and Poland could have a very advance nuclear arsenal within a year?

Sir, India respects the role of NPT in keeping the world safer although we were at a disadvantage vis a vis China. Within the regional context it didn't help us. And universal disarmament wasn't taken seriously. I'm guessing given India's commitment to nuclear disarmament we would've signed on NPT if it provided a nuclear umbrella to non-nuclear states:confused:


The Waiver directly references this statement.

Yes it does but the waiver text merely states participating government have taken note of India's moratorium. They have 'based' their judgment on India's commitment not made it a pre-requisite. That's the way I'll interpret, Sir. :confused:


Where's the fun in that? At the end of the day, neither you nor I have any say in the Waiver, 123, or the Hyde Act.

Yeah, but the more you read these waivers and agreements the more you realize these are subject to various interpretations. I'll say what you say. I don't know!

Reg. Japanese a preliminary google search reveals they've not totally shied away from developing an nuclear arsenal. It's obvious they'll make one if they went outside the US nuclear umbrella. Ideally, the Japanese should sympathize with Indian security concerns and not their dramatic moral grandstanding.

goff
10 Sep 08,, 14:53
Much to our relief it looks like this deal will actually strength the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.



This deal may cause India to collapse

There have been hosannas and hallelujahs aplenty about the fact that the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided to provide a waiver of sorts to India. The fine print is yet to be deciphered, but already the usual suspects are taking credit for having brought about 'energy security in our time.'

I am reminded of Neville Chamberlain, a British prime minister (his other claim to fame was his ever-present umbrella) returning to the UK from a conclave in Munich, where he had participated in appeasing Germany [Images] by giving away the Sudetenland. Chamberlain said: 'My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.'

He said this on September 30, 1938. Alas for him, on September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, and two days later, Britain declared war on Germany. Famous last words, indeed.

But I am being unfair to poor Chamberlain. He honestly believed that he had achieved something for his country. Not so with the bigwigs of the UPA. It has been abundantly clear for a very long time that the so-called nuclear deal stinks to high heaven, and that interests wholly unrelated to India's energy needs are driving the deal. The UPA knows what they are getting into, and they have been lying continuously to the Indian people.

It would be unseemly for me to name names (not to mention unwise, given the propensity of the UPA to cry 'libel' at the drop of a hat -- fortunately, a New Jersey court just threw out a wholly frivolous case filed by overseas acolytes of the UPA, who I do hope will get slapped with large punitive damages), but circumstantial evidence suggests that Jaswant Singh was not far off the mark when he talked about American 'moles' high up in the Indian government.

The confidential letter from the US State Department to the House Foreign Relations Committee, as publicised by Representative Howard Berman, is refreshingly candid about the real facts behind the deal: To use pithy Americanisms, the Indians are being taken to the cleaners. Being sold a bill of goods. Led to the slaughter. Being totally sold snake-oil, with the active connivance of their leaders.

Perhaps the apt historical analogy is not Chamberlain, but the East India Company. Or better yet, the capitulation to China over Tibet [Images]. India gave away its substantial treaty rights in Tibet to China in return for... vague promises of brotherhood. Here India is giving away its hard-won nuclear deterrent, the one thing that prevents the Chinese from running totally rampant in Asia, in return for... honeyed words from the Americans about strategic partnership!

I exaggerate, of course. There must be more. Nehru, being naive, believed in the bhai-bhai thing with China. But today's leaders are hard-boiled, and are doing this for other, very good reasons. What these reasons are, we shall never know, notwithstanding the Right To Information Act. The Indian government is extremely good at obfuscation.

What is being celebrated as a Great Victory (over what I am not sure) at the NSG is a little puzzling. I hate to be the little boy who asked about the Emperor's new clothes, but what exactly is India getting? After all the huffing and puffing, India has now been given the privilege of spending enormous amounts of money -- absolute billions -- to buy nuclear fission reactors and uranium? This is a good thing? Let us remember that the NSG was set up in 1974 as a secret cabal to punish India for its first nuclear test.

There is an old proverb in Malayalam about spending good money to buy a dog that then proceeds to bite you. India is now going to buy all these dangerous fission reactors from the US and France [Images] and Japan [Images] and spend $30 billion to $40 billion to be left with the possibility of Australians and Americans holding the Damocles' Sword of a disruptions in uranium supplies over us? This is better than being held hostage by OPEC over fossil fuels?

And if all goes well, India will be left holding the bag for absolute mountains of extremely dangerous and long-lived (10,000 years, say) radioactive waste, which we will not be allowed to reprocess in case we might extract something useful out of it. Of course all the reactors and the radioactive waste must be making our friendly neighbourhood terrorists rub their hands with glee in anticipation. Did I mention something about giving someone a stick to beat you with?

I think it should be obvious by now that India has been coerced into de facto accession to the NPT, the CTBT, the FMCT, and all the other alphabet-soup treaties that were set up to keep India muzzled. America's non-proliferation ayatollahs, barring a last-minute reprieve like the US Congress voting down the 123 Agreement (I am tempted to chant 'Berman saranam, Markey saranam,' etc) have accomplished 'cap, rollback, and eliminate'.

The letter leaked by Berman, as well as the fact that Article 2 of the 123 Agreement explicitly states that 'national laws' (read: The Hyde Amendment, with the clever little Barack Obama [Images] Amendment -- yes, Virginia, Obama did get his fingers into this pie too) govern the 123 Agreement, clarify that India is at the mercy of any US administration that sees fit to unilaterally abrogate the thing. Remember Tarapur? There was a similar little artifice of domestic legislation that was used to weasel out of a binding international treaty. The 123 Agreement is really not worth the paper it's written on.

Let us note that of the other hold-outs to the NPT, nobody is putting any pressure on Israel to sign anything, and they are getting all the fuel they need from sugar-daddy America; and Pakistan gets everything, including their bombs and their missiles, from their main squeeze China, while minor sugar-daddy America beams indulgently.

The sad part is that none of this does a thing for the only issue that matters, India's energy security. While the rest of the world has, rightly, looked upon the nuclear deal as a non-proliferation issue, the propaganda experts in India have sold it to the gullible public as a way of gaining energy independence. Alas, this is not true at all.

Here are a few facts about energy. I am indebted to, among others, the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (STEP) in Bangalore for this information.

Present world energy use: 15 terawatt-years per year

Potential availability of energy from different sources (in terawatt-years) (Source: Harvard)

* Oil and Gas: 3000
* Coal: 5000
* Uranium (conventional reactors): 2000
* Uranium (breeder reactors): 2,000,000
* Solar: 30,000 (per year)

Do note that last two numbers. One, solar energy accessible per year far exceeds the sum energy available from fossil fuels and uranium-fission reactors in toto, that is, by exhausting them. Two, breeder reactors can leverage thorium (turned into uranium-233) endlessly by creating more fuel than is exhausted, but the technology will take time.

Now, take a look at the amount of energy India generates, and how it is used up (Source: CSTEP and Lawrence Livermore Labs)

Total consumption: 5,721 billion kwh, of which:

* Lost energy: 3,257 billion kwh
* Useful energy: 2,364 billion kwh

Generation is from:

* Hydro: 84
* Wind: 5
* Solar: 0
* Nuclear: 58
* Bio-fuels: 1682
* Coal: 1852
* Natural Gas: 225
* Petroleum: 1645

Usage is by:

* Unaccounted electricity: 99
* Agriculture: 301
* Residential: 1511
* Commercial: 132
* Industrial: 1548
* Light Vehicles: 132
* Heavy Vehicles: 330
* Aircraft: 65
* Railways: 43

I believe the data is for 2005. What is startling is the enormous amount of wasted energy: more than the amount of useful energy. Besides, unaccounted for electricity is almost the same as the amount of energy used up by all air and railroad traffic in India! Thus, the very first thing that can pay huge dividends would be to get better accounting for energy use and to reduce wastage (as for example due to traffic congestion in cities).

Consider the capital costs of various types of energy: (Source: CSTEP)

* Natural Gas: $600/kW with 4-10cents/kWh in fuel costs
o Plus cost of pipelines and LNG terminals
* Wind: $1200/kW
o Plus cost of transmission lines from windy regions
* Hydro: n/a
* Biomass: n/a
* Coal: $1135/kW and 4c/kWh in fuel costs
o With CO2 cleanup: $2601/kW and 22c/kWh in fuel costs
o Plus cost of railroads and other infrastructure
* Solar Thermal: $4000/kW
* Solar Photovoltaic: $6000/kW
* Nuclear Fission: $3000/kW and 8c/kWh in fuel costs
o Plus cost of radioactive waste disposal
o (Source: World Nuclear Association, The Economics of Nuclear Power)

It can be seen that the cost of nuclear power is quite high, even if the costs of waste management are discounted. In addition, there has to be a substantial risk premium for the fact that the raw material is in short supply and is under the control of a cartel. A 'uranium shock' can be far more painful than the recent oil-shock, because it will simply mean the shuttering of a lot of the expensive plants acquired at extortionate prices.

All things considered, including the impact on the environment and carbon footprint, solar is the most sensible route for India. The capital costs for solar will come down significantly as new thin-film technology reduces the manufacturing cost, and conversion efficiency rises -- 40 per cent has been accomplished in the lab. Besides, if you look at the fully loaded cost, that is taking into account the gigantic public outlay already incurred for fossil fuels (as an example, there is a pipeline running 20 km out to see at Cochin Refineries so that large tankers can deliver oil without coming close to shore), solar is currently not very overpriced.

And, of course, you cannot beat the price of fuel: free, no need to get any certificates from the NSG, available in plenty for at least 300 days of the year. If large solar farms are set up in a few places (they may be 10km x 10km in size, and surely this can be put up in arid areas like the Thar desert), then solar energy is likely to be attractive. Besides, there will be economies of scale in manufacturing once demand is seeded by subsidies and tax breaks. Large-scale solar plants are becoming a reality: two giant solar farms, totally 880 MW, have just been approved by Pacific Gas and Electric in California: This is a huge step considering the largest solar plant in the US now is just 14 MW.

In addition, there are technological breakthroughs just around the corner in solar energy, as venture money is flowing into alternative energy. If only India were to invest in solar research and subsidies the billions that the UPA wants to spend on imported white elephant fission technology, India will truly gain energy independence.

The entire nuclear deal is a red-herring and a diversion. It is a colossal blunder; and when this is coming at such an enormous cost -- loss of the independent nuclear deterrent and intrusive inspection of the nuclear setup, which happy proliferator China is not subject to -- this is perhaps the worst act any government has taken since independence.

The UPA is subjecting India to colonialism. The beneficiaries are China, Pakistan, and the US.

This deal may well mark the tipping point that causes India to collapse: Without a nuclear deterrent, India is a sitting duck for Chinese blackmail including the proposed diversion of the Brahmaputra, for Pakistani-fomented insurrections, and Bangladeshi demographic invasion. India must be the very first large State in history that has consciously and voluntarily decided to dismantle itself.

This deal may cause India to collapse (http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/08rajeev.htm)

pravin
10 Sep 08,, 17:30
Much to our relief it looks like this deal will actually strength the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

An article written for sensationalism

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 08,, 20:40
What matters is relative power. It is obvious that China benefited much more from US-China trade over the last 3 decades than the US benefited from China. It would have been very hard for the Chinese (or for that matter Japan, or South Korea) to pursue an export oriented development strategy without an large low tariff open market like the US.The idea is that the US could buy more for less, thus freeing up funds to do other things. Again, Major Shek is the best person here to go over how China is enhancing US power.


Btw, what is your overall point? Are you saying the deal was bad from India's point of view? (I have just been arguing that is was good for India). Whether it is a net positive for NPT is unclear, but then I don't care too much for such a flawed and discriminatory treaty like the NPT.A solution looking for a problem. India's energy distribution network needs far more attention than nuclear power could provide.


And what can stop him from ammending the law if it is Russia's economic or strategic interest? The Russian are not to pleased with India inching close to the US.Russia won't for several reasons.

1) Moscow is an NPT author.
2) Moscow retains the right to strike at nuclear threats as defined by the NPT. At the time, this was China. The same argument that the US is now using for both North Korea and Iran.
3) There's more money to be made at charging India extra for what little help they could offer in case of sanctions.


True.
India won't go for the tests, unless ofcourse something untoward happens.
However, santions or no sanctions, nothing stops her as well.Give me a military reason other than national pride.


Colonel,

It's a matter of interpretation/perception. Suppose a rogue nation/entity were to cause extreme deterioration of security situation thereby forcing India to test - THAT is no fault of India's. ;)Same challenge I offer the Major. Give me a military reason to test


I believe coming this far was tough enough. Our hands remain tied vis a vis domestic laws/practices. Although this should work both ways...we know the US is da superpower. Baby steps, Colonel, Baby steps.I'll say this much. Dehli did one hell of a sales job.


Sir, India respects the role of NPT in keeping the world safer although we were at a disadvantage vis a vis China. Within the regional context it didn't help us. And universal disarmament wasn't taken seriously. I'm guessing given India's commitment to nuclear disarmament we would've signed on NPT if it provided a nuclear umbrella to non-nuclear states:confused:You've had one indirectly against China.


Yes it does but the waiver text merely states participating government have taken note of India's moratorium. They have 'based' their judgment on India's commitment not made it a pre-requisite. That's the way I'll interpret, Sir. :confused:Then, let's go back to a point I've made before. What did you sign that would not impose sanctions like the last time? We can forget Moscow and Paris continuing supplies after a test. They are as bound by the NPT as anyone.


Yeah, but the more you read these waivers and agreements the more you realize these are subject to various interpretations. I'll say what you say. I don't know!Well, gee, thanks for closing off a fun arguement.


Reg. Japanese a preliminary google search reveals they've not totally shied away from developing an nuclear arsenal. It's obvious they'll make one if they went outside the US nuclear umbrella. Ideally, the Japanese should sympathize with Indian security concerns and not their dramatic moral grandstanding.And give up a diplomatic tool?

mthambi
10 Sep 08,, 22:04
The idea is that the US could buy more for less, thus freeing up funds to do other things. Again, Major Shek is the best person here to go over how China is enhancing US power.


I didn't say the US didn't benefit from China trade. But after opening up the Chinese GDP growth went up a lot more than the US GDP growth did (if at all). Without all the trade, China wouldn't have all the money to spend on the military to compete with the US.



A solution looking for a problem. India's energy distribution network needs far more attention than nuclear power could provide.


Just because there are other solutions, doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue all possible solutions. India should pursue other options like Wind etc. too. If India burned coal for all its energy needs, the planet wouldn't be too happy. Btw, what is the downside of the deal for India?



Give me a military reason other than national pride.
Same challenge I offer the Major. Give me a military reason to test


Didn't you just say yesterday (post #93): "There is pressure to test. To verify the MIRV designs.". Did you change your mind since yesterday?



You've had one indirectly against China.


May I ask who is going to risk nuclear war with China for India's sake?

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 08,, 22:36
I didn't say the US didn't benefit from China trade. But after opening up the Chinese GDP growth went up a lot more than the US GDP growth did (if at all). Without all the trade, China wouldn't have all the money to spend on the military to compete with the US.By the same token, if China did not take on those 45 Soviet divisions, we would have bankrupted ourselves as well.


Just because there are other solutions, doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue all possible solutions. India should pursue other options like Wind etc. too. If India burned coal for all its energy needs, the planet wouldn't be too happy. Btw, what is the downside of the deal for India?India traded energy independence for energy security. Tellis and all have stated that India has enough uranium to accomplish her goals. It's just that incompetance and/or corruption has delayed its production to the point where unless foreign sources are sought, India would not meet its goal percentage of nuclear energy. Depending on foreign supplies does not fix India's uranium production problems.


Didn't you just say yesterday (post #93): "There is pressure to test. To verify the MIRV designs.". Did you change your mind since yesterday?MIRV only makes sense if India wants a 2000 warhead arsenal, not the 200 so often touted as the desired goal.


May I ask who is going to risk nuclear war with China for India's sake?I said indirectly. The Soviets were preparing to strike with nuclear forces across to Lop Nor. The Chinese had determined Soviet intentions for war. To divert what few nukes they had at the time (less than 10) when faced with such overwhelming force (200 Soviet warheads were deployed in the region) effectively meant India did not have to worry about Chinese nukes.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 04:25
By the same token, if China did not take on those 45 Soviet divisions, we would have bankrupted ourselves as well.

The US didn't go bankrupt fighting WWII. It is quite a stretch to assume that the cold war would have bankrupted the US without Chinese help. Especially since the Soviet Union was spending a much larger share of GDP on the military than the US.


India traded energy independence for energy security. Tellis and all have stated that India has enough uranium to accomplish her goals. It's just that incompetance and/or corruption has delayed its production to the point where unless foreign sources are sought, India would not meet its goal percentage of nuclear energy. Depending on foreign supplies does not fix India's uranium production problems.

What does India lose from the deal? Nothing has changed as far as India is concerned. India can test and have sanctions imposed by some countries (just like it was before the deal). India gets nuclear technology, dual use technology in other areas like space etc, and international acceptance as a weapons state (I know it is not the same as being NWS in NPT, but better than before the NSG waiver). Also it allows India to one day export nuclear reactor technology to other NPT states. (Just like it is competing on launching commercial satelites)

Whether India's reserves of uranium is adequate for current and future needs might be debatable (I haven't read Tellis's book). But the deal is about technology not just fuel. India can never produce as safe, efficient and cost effective a nuclear reactor as the rest of the world if it has to develop all the technology indigenuosly. Remember India is competing with not just another country, but all the other NPT states cooperating and trading to develop the best technology. It is just like building cars. When India was a closed economy all we built were second rate cars which was decades behind world class designs. But now Tata and other Indian companies can produce world class cars by sourcing world class components.


MIRV only makes sense if India wants a 2000 warhead arsenal, not the 200 so often touted as the desired goal.

So, if China develops an effective missile shield against a small number of nuclear missiles in the future, India naturally would have to reassess its nuclear stockpile and potentially test again. So clearly there can be a military need in the future, eventhough right now there is no need to test.


I said indirectly. The Soviets were preparing to strike with nuclear forces across to Lop Nor. The Chinese had determined Soviet intentions for war. To divert what few nukes they had at the time (less than 10) when faced with such overwhelming force (200 Soviet warheads were deployed in the region) effectively meant India did not have to worry about Chinese nukes.
I am not talking about 1962. Right now if India had no nuclear weapons and we got into a war with China, I don't think Russia would defend India against a nuclear attack by China (why would they risk a nuclear attack on their country for the sake of India?). The only way to make a nuclear umbrella credible is to station US troops in India (like they do near the Korean DMZ), so that enough US troops will be killed during a nuclear attack by China that US Congress will have no choice but declare war on China. India would not like to station US troops on Indian soil right now to keep its strategic independence.

The One
11 Sep 08,, 05:58
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: Bush sends Indo-US nuclear deal to US Congress (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064928)

Bush sends Indo-US nuclear deal to US Congress

Associated Press

Thursday, September 11, 2008, (Washington)

President Bush rushed US-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal to Congress late on Wednesday with hopes that lawmakers will expedite passage of one of his top foreign policy initiatives.

There is little time left on the Congressional calendar to pass the accord, which would reverse three decades of US policy by shipping atomic fuel to India in return for international inspections of India's civilian reactors.

With only about three weeks remaining before Congress recesses for the year, the Bush administration needs lawmakers' help to overcome a law that says Congress may not ratify the accord for 30 working days after receiving it.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met on Wednesday with Defence Minister and continued a push to persuade senior Democratic lawmakers to allow quick passage of the deal.

Democrats control the House and the Senate, and Rice has been appealing to crucial lawmakers to discuss the accord, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Lawmakers are scheduled to leave Washington at the end of the month to campaign for the November elections. Barring passage of legislation to scrap the 30-day waiting period, Congress does not appear to have enough days left to ratify the deal.

Defence Minister A K Antony and Rice met privately to discuss the nuclear deal and US-Indian military cooperation. Antony did not respond to reporters' questions before or after his meeting with Rice.

Some in Congress are vowing a careful and possibly time-consuming review of US-Indian nuclear negotiations, which could doom the plan's passage this year.

That would leave it in the hands of a new Congress and President, and it is unclear whether it would remain a priority.

However, both Presidential contenders, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have expressed support for the accord, and it has enjoyed backing among senior lawmakers from both parties.

Berman, who supports nuclear cooperation, has said that if the administration wants to speed Congressional consideration, it must first deal with qualms some lawmakers have, such as what impact another Indian nuclear test might have on the agreement.

India has refused to sign nonproliferation agreements and has faced a nuclear trade ban since its first atomic test in 1974. But on Saturday, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries that supply nuclear material and technology agreed to lift the ban on civilian nuclear trade with India after contentious talks and some concessions to countries fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.

US officials have said that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring the country's atomic program under closer scrutiny. Critics say it would ruin global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons and boost India's nuclear arsenal.

The One
11 Sep 08,, 06:11
SOURCE:- India free to conduct tests: Mulford- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/PoliticsNation/India_free_to_conduct_tests_Mulford/articleshow/3468848.cms)

India free to conduct tests: Mulford

11 Sep, 2008, 0103 hrs IST,

NEW DELHI: In a statement that brings comfort to the Manmohan Singh government, US ambassador to India David Mulford has said that India has the sovereign right to conduct nuclear test.

Mr Mulford’s statement does not signify any great revelation as India’s sovereign right to test remains uncontested in the bilateral agreement and the NSG waiver.

“If you ask me can India conduct (nuclear) test, my answer is India has had and will always have the sovereign right to conduct a test. That has never been debated,” Mr Mulford told a television channel. whether India has given a commitment not to conduct tests, Mr Mulford said “it does not have to.”

In spite of Mr Mulford’s supportive statements, the Hyde Act clearly says that there will be an immediate end to bilateral nuclear cooperation if India tests a nuclear weapon. The state department’s own interpretation is that even fuel supply guarantees would cease to exist if India were to test a nuclear weapon.

The issue of testing is expected to feature in discussions on the 123 agreement in the US Congress.

At this stage the Bush administration is sparing no effort in ensuring a smooth passage for the agreement with secretary of state Condoleezza Rice meeting key players in the US Congress.

Ms Rice met speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman, two powerful Democrats, to hold discussions on how to get the 123 agreement through the current session of the US Congress.

For the administration, the key issue at this point is to find a way of circumventing the 30-day waiting period so that the 123 agreement can be placed before the Congress for an up or down vote. Mr Mulford said that the 123 agreement would be placed before the US Congress within 48 hours.

Ms Pelosi, who is a powerful Democrat, is being considered key to the process for getting the 123 agreement for an up or down vote in the House of Representatives.

“The speaker looks forward to reviewing the submission in detail and consulting with chairman Berman and members of the leadership in determining the appropriate course of action,” Ms Pelosi’s spokesman Nadeam Elshami was quoted as saying.

Ms Rice also met with Mr Berman, who has so far been unsupportive of the Bush administration initiative. After India was granted the NSG waiver, Mr Berman had warned the administration against rushing the 123 agreement through the US Congress and said that he would not consider any “expedited” timetable. He had further asked for details of the negotiations in the run up to the waiver.

The Congress has to consider the 123 agreement for 30 continuous legislative days before voting can take place and the current session does not have the requisite number of days.

Apart from the 123 agreement, the administration also needs to present a set of presidential determinations to the US Congress as per the pre-requisite set down in the Hyde Act.

Apart from the NSG waiver, the Hyde package includes a certification that India has made “substantial progress” in concluding a deal with the IAEA on an “additional protocol.” India and the IAEA had started discussions over a month ago on the additional protocol. It is understood that New Delhi has assured Washington that it has made progress in these talks.

“We think there is a possibility of getting this passed this year and we are going to do everything we possibly can,” state department spokesman Sean McCormack said. “Whether it does or not, it’s not going to be because of lack of efforts,” he added.

goff
11 Sep 08,, 06:49
SOURCE:- India free to conduct tests: Mulford- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/PoliticsNation/India_free_to_conduct_tests_Mulford/articleshow/3468848.cms)
[B][U]


If that happens then the deal should be called off, this deal is suppose to strength NPT not weaken it. I doubt congress would allow it to go through, if it does it would weaken their dealings with other states that want nuclear weapons.

goff
11 Sep 08,, 06:56
If this derails Nuclear Non-Proliferation, then I say scuttle it




Bush Asks Congress to Approve U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Accord

By Viola Gienger and Laura Litvan

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush asked the U.S. Congress to approve the nuclear energy agreement with India, saying the accord meets the terms lawmakers set almost two years ago and poses no risk to security.

``The proposed agreement provides a comprehensive framework for U.S. peaceful nuclear cooperation with India,'' Bush said in a statement issued late yesterday. The accord ``will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security.''

The Bush administration is racing to win ratification of the agreement before Congress adjourns on Sept. 26, after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put his government on the line for it. While a group of nuclear-supplier nations last week granted a waiver for India to engage in trade of nuclear fuel and supplies, U.S. companies need congressional approval to participate.

Companies including General Electric Co. want a shot at selling atomic fuel and technology to an economy that needs to power growth of more than 8 percent annually since 2003. The country of 1.1 billion people may spend $100 billion or more to meet its energy demands.

The negotiated terms meet all requirements of the 1954 U.S. Atomic Energy Act except one, Bush said. The accord doesn't condition continued U.S. supply of atomic fuel to India on the International Atomic Energy Agency's ability to conduct safety inspections of all nuclear materials.

India will submit only its civilian reactors to IAEA safeguards, not its military program.

Growing Relationship

``The agreement will reinforce the growing bilateral relationship between two vibrant democracies,'' Bush said in his statement. The U.S. is ``committed to a strategic partnership with India.''

Civil nuclear cooperation will offer major strategic and economic benefits to both countries, Bush said. He cited improved energy security, more access to an ``environmentally friendly'' power source, greater economic opportunities, and ``more robust non-proliferation efforts.''

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to bring the agreement to a vote by the full chamber, Jim Manley, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat, said yesterday.

``Senator Reid indicated that he would try to find a way to move it forward,'' said Manley. Reid will consult with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Republican leadership ``to try and find a way to do so.''

30 Days

The first hurdle is a requirement under the 2006 law that Congress be in session for 30 days to consider the final negotiated agreement. That wouldn't be possible in the remaining time for this session.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, both California Democrats, haven't said whether they'll support waiving the 30-day requirement in a law passed in 2006.

``The speaker looks forward to reviewing the submission in detail and consulting with Chairman Berman and members of the leadership in determining the appropriate course of action,'' Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi, said yesterday.

Singh and Bush first signed the outlines of the trade accord in 2005. Officials negotiated the specific terms last year.

Congress laid the groundwork for the agreement with passage of the Hyde Act in December 2006, setting hurdles that must be overcome before returning to the House and Senate for final approval.

Nuclear Test

Lawmakers and arms-control advocates have been concerned that the U.S. is pledging to continue supplying India with nuclear fuel even if it conducts another atomic test, a practice that prompted its isolation in the first place. Bush said in his letter that the accord doesn't ``transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments.''

Among the standards set, Bush must certify that India has met requirements such as gaining the approval of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and submitting a list of atomic plants for civilian energy use that will be subject to safeguards inspections by the Vienna-based IAEA.

``We've got to look at the details because there are going to be some problems'' in the package sent to the House, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association.

India hadn't submitted the list as of Sept. 7 and didn't plan to until after the U.S. agreement goes forward and contracts with companies are negotiated, Kimball said in a telephone interview before the package was submitted to Congress.

Arms-control advocates are fighting passage without stricter standards for India, citing its status as one of only three countries that never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India wants to retain the right to develop nuclear weapons.

``Given India's history of violating its peaceful nuclear use agreements to build nuclear weapons, India's promises provide little confidence,'' Kimball said.

Bloomberg.com: India & Pakistan (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=a3SAZ2vCB4GA&refer=india)

The One
11 Sep 08,, 06:59
If that happens then the deal should be called off, this deal is suppose to strength NPT not weaken it. I doubt congress would allow it to go through, if it does it would weaken their dealings with other states that want nuclear weapons.

I can't understand there politics.Pranab Mukherjee is saying "India has right to test and the world has right to react". What if U.S. wants all its uranium back,according to Hyde act, after India conducts a test? We can give money, we can develop technology but we can't give them uranium because we already don't have it.:confused:

pravin
11 Sep 08,, 07:07
I can't understand there politics.Pranab Mukherjee is saying "India has right to test and the world has right to react". What if U.S. wants all its uranium back,according to Hyde act, after India conducts a test? We can give money, we can develop technology but we can't give them uranium because we already don't have it.:confused:

no one is buying Uranium from US .They buy it from France and Russia as for India collapsing article according to

Mr Goff

Big load of Horse puckey.We have gone through enough tests and tribulations and we know how to survive.

As for the nuclear deal GoI is not going to invest a sinngle dollar.It is all done through private partnerships

goff
11 Sep 08,, 07:16
no one is buying Uranium from US .They buy it from France and Russia as for India collapsing article according to

Mr Goff

Big load of Horse puckey.We have gone through enough tests and tribulations and we know how to survive.

As for the nuclear deal GoI is not going to invest a sinngle dollar.It is all done through private partnerships

Found this out at another forum, I check the website out there is a discussion going on at the bottom of the website and most Indians seems to be very negative of the deal even the recent one.

The One
11 Sep 08,, 07:20
Found this out at another forum, I check the website out there is a discussion going on at the bottom of the website and most Indians seems to be very negative of the deal even the recent one.

Please provide a link :)

goff
11 Sep 08,, 07:24
I can't understand there politics.Pranab Mukherjee is saying "India has right to test and the world has right to react". What if U.S. wants all its uranium back,according to Hyde act, after India conducts a test? We can give money, we can develop technology but we can't give them uranium because we already don't have it.:confused:

It means India would have anther sanction if the deal doesn't get can first, it is very likely that India is going to get treated as bad as Iran if that happens.

Anyway my principles is the same as the Colonel in regards to this, I just don't like to see more nuclear weapons showing up the cold war is over after all.

goff
11 Sep 08,, 07:26
Please provide a link :)
The forum is called Waff, some Chinese guy/girl was posting this up and posturing NPT breakage.

If you are talking about the forum for the news story its here at the bottom of the website

This deal may cause India to collapse (http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/08rajeev.htm)

pravin
11 Sep 08,, 07:30
It means India would have anther sanction if the deal doesn't get can first, it is very likely that India is going to get treated as bad as Iran if that happens.

Anyway my principles is the same as the Colonel in regards to this, I just don't like to see more nuclear weapons showing up the cold war is over after all.

We are not a signatory of NPT and Iran is one.We tested a nuke in 1998
what did they do? nothing

pravin
11 Sep 08,, 07:32
The forum is called Waff, some Chinese guy/girl was posting this up and posturing NPT breakage.

If you are talking about the forum for the news story its here at the bottom of the website

This deal may cause India to collapse (http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/08rajeev.htm)

Pls provide the link to the forum .I read that horse puckey article you posted from rediff

goff
11 Sep 08,, 07:38
We are not a signatory of NPT and Iran is one.We tested a nuke in 1998
what did they do? nothing

And does it mean India gets rewarded by the waiver granted by the NSG to test nuclear bombs because it didn't sign the NPT, Iran will get punish when does it test the bomb count on that happening.

I don't know why you Indian like to test Nuclear weapons just so you can thump your chest, but I seriously doubt the NSG and the Nuclear deal agreement granted you to this. You can be allow to buy nuclear material and nuclear reactors to help diverse your energy requirement and that is it, if you want to do more non peaceful methods then the deal gets can.

goff
11 Sep 08,, 07:41
Pls provide the link to the forum .I read that horse puckey article you posted from rediff

Its at the bottom half of the page at rediff.com/news/2008/sep/08rajeev.htm , it will take a while to come out.

pravin
11 Sep 08,, 07:48
I don't know why you Indian like to test Nuclear weapons just so you can thump your chest, but I seriously doubt the NSG and the Nuclear deal agreement granted you to this. You can be allow to buy nuclear material and nuclear reactors to help diverse your energy requirement and that is it, if you want to do more non peaceful methods then the deal gets can.

Have you exactly seen the location of India on the world map.What do you see?

Two neighbours ,one with Imperialist ambitions with whom we lost a war and has nukes and is currently percieved as a threat by the western world.The other neighbour is a ps**** whose sole aim is to destroy us ,who engaged with us in nearly 4 wars in 60 years where in each case we defeated them soundly yet they come to irk us again .So India needs nukes to keep them both at bay.We don't have the privilege like AUSTRALIA to have great friendly neighbours nor its geographical position.We are in the middle of a powder keg

with regard
Pravin

goff
11 Sep 08,, 08:00
Iran can say the same thing with Israel, but India doesn't need to worry about this. If the Chinese have been supplying Nuclear weapons to Pakistan, then China would get sanctions.

As Pakistan, Nato members and other democracy can force Pakistan to sign the NPT, but Pakistan excuse in 1998 for not signing it was that India needs to sign the NPT first before Pakistan will sign it. If this deal is as Bush claims it to be, it would have be a process that South Asia would denuclearized including Pakistan.

goff
11 Sep 08,, 08:04
This deal keeps get better and better :mad:

Note: There is another forum at the bottom of the news site



Bush's Nuclear Deal with India Is a Disaster for World Safety and the Environment | Environment | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/environment/98328/bush%27s_nuclear_deal_with_india_is_a_disaster_for _world_safety_and_the_environment/)

Bush's Nuclear Deal with India Is a Disaster for World Safety and the Environment

Why is everyone from John McCain to Barack Obama in favor of a plan that could launch a new nuclear arms race?


A bitter closure is finally at hand for the long international debate over the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. In a controversial statement issued in Vienna on Saturday, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the legal nuclear trade worldwide, granted India an unprecedented waiver to buy nuclear material and technology despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its possession of nuclear weapons.

The decision is the penultimate step in changing the law to allow U.S. firms to help develop India's nuclear energy sector. With large majorities in the House and Senate supporting the deal -- including senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain -- passage by Congress is likely during the opening session of 2009, despite dead-ender opposition by a handful of lawmakers led by Congressman Edward Markey, D-Mass. Passage by Congress would end a long and bloody political process that began in the summer of 2005, when George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a joint statement in Washington outlining a new strategic partnership, including a pledge by the United States to end India's nuclear pariah status.

Saturday's vote in Vienna was a long time coming. Immediately after the 2005 announcement, proponents and critics began digging trenches on either side of the deal, which the Bush administration viewed as its best shot at a meaningful post-Iraq foreign policy legacy. Some boosters went as far as to liken it to Nixon's going to China. By the time Bush and Singh met in New Delhi in March 2006 to sign the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, the battle lines were marked and the battle cries well rehearsed.

Boosters in both capitols hailed the pact as heralding a historic geostrategic realignment, cementing ties between the world's oldest and biggest democracies. The nuclear deal, they said, would accomplish three things: It would bring India in from the nonproliferation cold by opening its civilian reactors to U.N. inspectors; help the growing country of more than 1 billion people meet surging energy demand; and reduce pressures on global oil supplies and atmospheric carbon counts. Critics decried the proposed exemption as a potentially fatal blow to the already creaking legal infrastructure of the nonproliferation regime. How, they asked, can we reward India for going nuclear without making a farce of the rules binding the rest of the world's non-nuclear nations? What's more, critics warned, sending uranium to India would fuel a nuclear arms race in South Asia.

For years the sides have waged battle in Washington, New Delhi, Vienna, New York and beyond, with overlapping political mini-dramas at times resembling a shifting pattern of Chinese trick rings. Few news stories have been so taxing on the public's attention. Supporters in Washington and New Delhi had to battle domestic and international critics, all the while recalibrating the terms of the bilateral deal. Last weekend's breakthrough comes after numerous rounds of under-the-radar negotiations and arm-twisting inside the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, both of which were required to approve aspects of the waiver before the pact could be ratified by Congress.

As recently as last month, the fate of the deal was in serious doubt. At the NSG's August meeting, an alliance of small European nations demanded, with the quiet backing of China, the insertion of a series of conditions and asterisks to the exemption that were unacceptable to India. But between the August meeting and last Saturday, the European opposition front was crushed under pressure from Washington. Bush then leaned hard on Chinese President Hu Jintao to accept to the deal, which China has never liked because of its implications for the balance of power in its dangerous backyard.

The result is an unprecedented change in international law allowing a non-NPT signatory state to purchase uranium and high-end reactor technology on the world market. In exchange, India will open its civilian plants to U.N. inspectors, in line with a much-criticized partial inspection plan approved by the IAEA last month. India's military nuclear installations, meanwhile, will remain off limits. Most importantly for India's nuclear weapons program, New Delhi can now import uranium to develop the civilian nuclear energy sector, while reserving the country's meager domestic ore deposits for the expansion of its nuclear arsenal, currently estimated to consist of fewer than 100 bombs.

Already some Pakistani officials are saying the deal will lead to an aggravated arms race between the two nuclear states, likely forcing China to participate as well.

Prominent critics of the deal say this is no surprise, and that an arms race in Asia is only the most immediate aspect of the deal's geopolitical fallout. "This is a nonproliferation disaster of historic proportions," says Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association. "The India-specific exemption from NSG guidelines severely erodes the credibility of global efforts to ensure that access to peaceful nuclear trade and technology is available only to those states that meet global nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament standards." Henry Sokolski, a member of the congressional commission on proliferation and terrorism, goes further, calling the deal "Nonproliferation's 9/11."

As such critics warned would happen, there has already been a small cascade effect among non-NPT signatory nuclear states, with Pakistan and Israel now raising the question of their own exemptions.

Unease over the NSG decision is not limited to professional nonproliferation activists. Many of those who ultimately went along with the NSG consensus vote under American pressure understand what is at stake. A European diplomat who participated in Saturday's Vienna meeting told Reuters, "For the first time in my experience of international diplomatic negotiations, a consensus decision was followed by complete silence in the room. No clapping, nothing." Another dismayed diplomat wondered openly, "NPT RIP?"

"The deal struck in the NSG is likely to have slow-motion, far-reaching, negative repercussions because the Indian waiver was not accompanied by compensatory steps to shore up international controls against proliferation," writes Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Center, in a recent analysis of the NSG waiver.

Among the most important of these ignored "compensatory steps," argue Krepon and others, is India's required signature on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. At Washington's insistence, the NSG statement does not include mandatory penalties if India resumes testing. Since the NSG operates by consensus, this means that even if India resumes nuclear testing, the major nuclear powers with financial stakes in the new status quo can keep the NSG from stopping legal nuclear trade with India.

As Krepon and others point out, this omission in the NSG statement is inconsistent with the Hyde Act of 2006, which Congress passed in order to link nuclear trade with India to the maintenance of that country's current voluntary testing moratorium. In failing to include similar conditions in the NSG ruling, the Bush administration has put Congress in a position where it must either ignore or amend its own law.

Regardless of what Democrats in Congress say or do about the legal mismatch, supporters of the deal say the break with the past has been made, and that is all that matters. "Whatever glitches and conflicts occur down the road, the deal is done," says C. Raja Mohan, a foreign affairs columnist for the Indian Express and former adviser to the Indian foreign ministry. "Some provisions are clearly liable for interpretation in different ways, and the nitpickers and the nonproliferation crowd in D.C. and Delhi will scream. But our atomic energy guys are happy. The train has left the station."

So it has. The problem is, no one knows seems to know exactly where it is headed.

* * *

With so much attention focused on the nonproliferation aspect of the deal, it can be easy to forget that India's exemption from the rules was originally framed and sold as a way to help India provide power for its people, fight climate change and slacken a tightening global oil market. Typical of the early public relations efforts, Indian officials popped up at a 2005 U.N. climate conference and argued that growing India's nuke sector was a fit substitution for signing Kyoto. Shortly after the deal was announced in March 2006, Condoleezza Rice published an op-ed in the Washington Post claiming, "Civilian nuclear energy will make (India) less reliant on unstable sources of oil and gas." And last week, just after the NSG statement was issued in Vienna, Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband, welcomed the news with the familiar refrain, "We believe (the exemption) will make a significant contribution to energy and climate security."

But most serious observers doubt the deal will make a contribution to much other than the profit margins of the world's struggling nuclear power firms. Among the companies hoping to get a piece of Indian pie are General Electric, France's Areva, Russia's Rosatom and Japan's Toshiba. (In deference to Washington's role in leading the exemption charge, New Delhi has promised to delay all bilateral contracting until Congress approves the deal, freeing up U.S. companies to land the juiciest subcontracting tenders around the corner.) Rhetoric aside, exactly how green is this deal? And will it have any impact on the global oil scramble?

The answers are "not very" and "none."

The biggest lie told about India's nuclear sector is that growing it will decrease India's oil imports. This won't happen because India uses its limited oil resources and imports exclusively for transport, not energy. What nuclear will displace is a bit of coal, which currently generates the majority of India's energy. According to the Indian government's own figures, the deal will do nothing to curb energy demand or emissions in the transport sector, where oil use will continue to keep pace with overall growth and the explosion of cars on India's roads.

No one denies that India has an energy crisis. The Indian Finance Ministry estimates that every year $68 billion in goods and services is lost due to power outages, a daily part of Indian life from cotton-belt villages to hi-tech boomtowns. But the needed megawatts (MW) are well beyond what nuclear can provide. In order to sustain India's current growth rate of 8 percent, the Indian government says 350,000 MW will be required in the coming decades. This is a tripling of current capacity, which currently meets only about half the national demand.

Nuclear can help meet this need, but not by much. Even generous estimates of the nuclear sector's growth put the top capacity at 20,000 MW by 2025. At the moment, nuclear provides less than 2 percent of the country's energy; keeping apace with growth, this number is unlikely to break the 8 percent figure.

"There's been a lot of disingenuous rhetoric about this deal," says Sudha Mahalingam, an energy specialist at New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research. "No one who understands the ground realities of India's energy market could take the government claims seriously. On cost grounds alone, nuclear power in India is a mirage. Energy security will remain elusive." According to Mahalingam, nuclear makes little economic sense compared to coal (currently providing 60 percent of India's electricity), hydro (25 percent) and gas from the Middle East and Southeast Asia, imports of which are set to rise dramatically. "The state utilities remain insolvent, and the prospects for attracting private capital are dim. Nuclear power in India will die of its own contradictions."

"Nuclear power is simply not capable of meeting more than a small fraction of India's rapidly growing electricity needs," agrees Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute. "Micro-solar, wind and hydro would be better investments given the needs and realities of a rural, densely populated country like India. The opportunity costs of pursuing nuclear are huge."

Indeed, the much larger potential of wind, hydro and solar is one of the casualties of so much official excitement over the nuclear deal. Some estimates place India's untapped hydro potential as high as 100,000 MW, a majority of its current total capacity and five times what the government hopes to get from nuclear in the coming decades. Wind is also experiencing rapid growth in India, the world's fourth-largest producer of wind energy. According to a study by the consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, India's untapped electrical generating capacity from hydro alone is the equivalent of 150 large nuclear plants.

The opportunity costs of ignoring these smaller-scale alternatives are borne disproportionately by India's poor. As Leonard Weiss observed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2006, India's energy problems are as much if not more about distribution as they are about supply.

Rural areas, where 70 percent of India's population lives, use only 13 percent of the power on the grid. It is evident that India's most pressing electrical energy issue is distribution, yet more than 90 percent of investment in its power sector goes into generation and transmission. One approach to this problem is decentralized, distributed energy generation, in which small- to medium-size facilities are located near sites of power demand, in contrast to relying on large central power plants. Because the electricity produced by distributed generation flows shorter distances to consumers, it is cheaper than relying on a vast transmission and distribution network, which has high capital, operations and maintenance costs, as well as significant energy losses. Distributed generation encompasses a number of options: wind power, biomass and waste-driven fuel cells, microturbines and solar photovoltaics.

For India's micro-power and nonproliferation activists, the nuclear deal and the enormous investment in nuclear that it portends is a double tragedy. "For 50 years, the nuclear lobby has been promising to develop this country," says Dhirendra Sharma, retired director of the Centre for Science Policy Research at Jawaharlal Nehru University. "And what have they given us, besides the bomb, after so many billions spent? They're using radiation technology to lengthen the shelf life of peanuts."

pravin
11 Sep 08,, 08:27
Iran can say the same thing with Israel, but India doesn't need to worry about this. If the Chinese have been supplying Nuclear weapons to Pakistan, then China would get sanctions.

As Pakistan, Nato members and other democracy can force Pakistan to sign the NPT, but Pakistan excuse in 1998 for not signing it was that India needs to sign the NPT first before Pakistan will sign it. If this deal is as Bush claims it to be, it would have be a process that South Asia would denuclearized including Pakistan.

The point is HAVE THEY GOT SANCTIONS ?currently they have been doing that since 3 decades ,what did the west and the so called NPT do?.Nothing plus it gave it the right to have nukes


The persians are great people but their leader is an idiot.The Israelis are asking the arab world to leave them alone but arabs dont seem to do that


As Pakistan, Nato members and other democracy can force Pakistan to sign the NPT, but Pakistan excuse in 1998 for not signing it was that India needs to sign the NPT first before Pakistan will sign it.

PS: Preaching is different from practicing

NATO is powerless in the Indian sub-continent.It is the US that holds weight
Iam telling you again our co-operation will be more with France and Russia than US.Hope you get the point

bolo121
11 Sep 08,, 08:32
Much of that so called untapped Hydro potential is located in the insurgency hit north east uncomfortably close to disputed borders.
If one were to calculate things such as inundation due to dam construction, relocation of people, defence needed for power plants from naxals, constructing transmission infrastructure to send the power to the energy hungry parts of India, and so on the cost of hydro would be huge.

Imagine what someone like Mamta would do with such an issue!

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 09:07
The US didn't go bankrupt fighting WWII. It is quite a stretch to assume that the cold war would have bankrupted the US without Chinese help. Especially since the Soviet Union was spending a much larger share of GDP on the military than the US.You forget that during WWII, both London and Moscow were spending more than their share of monies.

When added to the Fulda Gap, the Warsaw Pact had the numeric advantage that they needed (3 to 1) to start a war. Without those 45 Divisions, it was 172 Warsaw Pact Divisions against 87 NATO Divisions. Add those 45 in and Soviet Generals have the confidence to dictate the battlefield, especially on local superiority.


What does India lose from the deal? Nothing has changed as far as India is concerned. India can test and have sanctions imposed by some countries (just like it was before the deal). India gets nuclear technology, dual use technology in other areas like space etc, and international acceptance as a weapons state (I know it is not the same as being NWS in NPT, but better than before the NSG waiver). Also it allows India to one day export nuclear reactor technology to other NPT states. (Just like it is competing on launching commercial satelites)And if your factory is half way built?


Whether India's reserves of uranium is adequate for current and future needs might be debatable (I haven't read Tellis's book). But the deal is about technology not just fuel. India can never produce as safe, efficient and cost effective a nuclear reactor as the rest of the world if it has to develop all the technology indigenuosly. Remember India is competing with not just another country, but all the other NPT states cooperating and trading to develop the best technology. It is just like building cars. When India was a closed economy all we built were second rate cars which was decades behind world class designs. But now Tata and other Indian companies can produce world class cars by sourcing world class components.Bought at a price of no testing.


So, if China develops an effective missile shield against a small number of nuclear missiles in the future, India naturally would have to reassess its nuclear stockpile and potentially test again. So clearly there can be a military need in the future, eventhough right now there is no need to test.You've lost that race before it began.

2nd, Moscow and Washington will never tolerate a 2000 warhead arsenal that is not their own. They will never go through the INF hoopla again.

3rd, Chinese 1st strike forces are conventional, not nuclear.


I am not talking about 1962. Right now if India had no nuclear weapons and we got into a war with China, I don't think Russia would defend India against a nuclear attack by China (why would they risk a nuclear attack on their country for the sake of India?). The only way to make a nuclear umbrella credible is to station US troops in India (like they do near the Korean DMZ), so that enough US troops will be killed during a nuclear attack by China that US Congress will have no choice but declare war on China. India would not like to station US troops on Indian soil right now to keep its strategic independence.It was 1973 and the point remained that for over 20 years, China could not afford to waste a nuke on India or anybody else for that matter.

Yusuf
11 Sep 08,, 10:28
Does this deal make India the 46th member of the NSG?

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 10:31
It's a waiver, not a membership application though what is the difference, I have no idea.

Ray
11 Sep 08,, 10:36
China would get sanctions.

The day that happens will be the day.

$ speaks louder!

US has mortgaged itself to China!

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 10:39
Sir,

China was sanctioned for Tianamen Square. Militarily, it set them back 10-15 years. Economically, it set them back 5-10 years.

After Tianamen Square, Beijing had to mortgage its soul to the US greenback to win back that loss. It wasn't easy and it was not all profitable for the Chinese.

sun
11 Sep 08,, 10:39
In 45 member NSG, even one member can stop any resolution right?
If we get the membership, we will get that power :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 10:42
It would not matter. Each country's individual commitment to the NSG is backed by their own domestic law requirement. While technically, Indian membership could derailed any attempt to kill the waiver, the individual members would act as required by their own laws to uphold the NSG's original mandate.

Yusuf
11 Sep 08,, 10:43
It's a waiver, not a membership application though what is the difference, I have no idea.

But India is allowed to sell nuke material under the draft. So that means everything that an NSG member can do, can be done by India.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 10:48
India could always sell. They just couldn't buy from the NSG until now.

Yusuf
11 Sep 08,, 11:12
If India had sold, would it not be considered proliferation?

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 11:14
It was but then, so was China before they signed the NPT. In fact, there was nuclear trade between the two countries while they remained outside the NPT and the NSG.

sun
11 Sep 08,, 11:23
Obviously when NSG is meeting to decide the continuation of the waiver to India, Indian membership may not count.
But incase if China comes up by demanding similar waiver for Pakistan, India can stop it, if it is a member of NSG.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 11:35
I'm getting a headache.

Legally speaking, I don't know how to stop China's submission of Pakistan to the NSG. After all, it's based upon the "No Test" commitment. Since Pak nukes are Chinese based, the Paks really don't need to test (they just need to get the QA in order).

However, politically, it would be almost an impossible sell because of AQ Khan's history.

Samudra
11 Sep 08,, 13:53
The waiver is not a membership although India has expressed its willingness to become one in the MEA statement referred in the NSG waiver.

For Pakistan to get a waiver it shall have to approach IAEA and agree upon a full scope safeguards agreement before approaching NSG. This would also entail a 'separation plan' and giving up A.Q.Khan. In short - not happening.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 15:33
It would not matter. Each country's individual commitment to the NSG is backed by their own domestic law requirement. While technically, Indian membership could derailed any attempt to kill the waiver, the individual members would act as required by their own laws to uphold the NSG's original mandate.

If you think individual actions work as well as multilateral actions at NSG, what is the point in NSG? Would you support dismantling the NSG? I for one are much much less worried about individual country sanctions than sanctions through the NSG.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 15:38
They're one and the same. A country signing and treaty and then ratifying it means that they have put into place the domestic law requiring them to obey the tenets of that treaty. The waiver does not require new ratification of a new treaty. The original tenets of the treaty and their domestic law underpinning remains in place.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 15:39
The waiver is not a membership although India has expressed its willingness to become one in the MEA statement referred in the NSG waiver.

For Pakistan to get a waiver it shall have to approach IAEA and agree upon a full scope safeguards agreement before approaching NSG. This would also entail a 'separation plan' and giving up A.Q.Khan. In short - not happening.

Geopolitics plays a part too. Technically the only countries with an automatic right to the benefits of NSG are countries which sign the NPT. In short Pakistan will have to suck up to Washington and other major countries to get the deal done.

Btw, I don't think India would get a seat in the NSG in the short order (considering the acrimony to get the deal approved). I would imagine that too will require consensus at NSG. It is possible things might change with time, though.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 15:41
They're one and the same. A country signing and treaty and then ratifying it means that they have put into place the domestic law requiring them to obey the tenets of that treaty. The waiver does not require new ratification of a new treaty. The original tenets of the treaty and their domestic law underpinning remains in place.

I agree that the treaty requires domestic laws to be effective.

If there was no treaty (and just domestic laws), then a country could unilaterally change it. With the NSG, you need consensus to change anything legally.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 15:46
The point I'm trying to raise here is that the original domestic laws that were put into place to support the NSG has not and will not change because of the Waiver. Thus, while consensus is needed to kill the Waiver if India tests, the fact is that the effect will be the same without killing the Waiver. Those NSG countries are obliged by their own laws to stop trade.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 16:01
You forget that during WWII, both London and Moscow were spending more than their share of monies.

When added to the Fulda Gap, the Warsaw Pact had the numeric advantage that they needed (3 to 1) to start a war. Without those 45 Divisions, it was 172 Warsaw Pact Divisions against 87 NATO Divisions. Add those 45 in and Soviet Generals have the confidence to dictate the battlefield, especially on local superiority.

Raising another 45 divisions (many of them from Western Europe), would have bankrupted the US and Western Europe? The US was spending about 10% of GDP on defense during the coldwar. During WWII it spent 37%.

Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org) (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)



And if your factory is half way built?

I hope the Indian govt is not that stupid to test while a reactor is being built.


Bought at a price of no testing.

The Indian govt (and the American ambassador to India) says that India doesn't have a legal commitment against testing. Only a voluntary moratorium. ("Moratorium" means suspension/delay not a permanent ban)



You've lost that race before it began.


India should not try to get into an arms race with China. It should only have enough weapons to make sure that nuclear deterrence works. So India shouldn't care if China has 1000 warheads. But if China builds an effective missile shield that can shoot down 100 missiles simultaneously (very very hard with current technology), then we need to have 101 warheads.



2nd, Moscow and Washington will never tolerate a 2000 warhead arsenal that is not their own. They will never go through the INF hoopla again.

Washington and Moscow didn't prevent Chinese proliferation to Pakistan. They are not omnipotent.



3rd, Chinese 1st strike forces are conventional, not nuclear.

And you can guarantee that, how? If China doesn't care about nuclear weapons, how about we have a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons of India, China and Pakistan simultaneously. How do you think China would react to that proposal?



It was 1973 and the point remained that for over 20 years, China could not afford to waste a nuke on India or anybody else for that matter.
And you are so sure that it remains so and will remain so forever?

longbow
11 Sep 08,, 16:12
I agree with the officer, the Indian N-test is dead in this deal. Just imagine Indian sets off bombs in the future, and still can access the civil nuclear technology freely, and not signing NPT - there is no second such example like this in the past, and world community definitely won't tolerate that. It will totally destroy the existing NP framework.

Also Indians blow this thing way out of proportion, understandably though. A country's future doesn't depend on this kind of deal. Most of countries in this world can access the civil nuclear technologies for long time, but the most of them don't get any benefit at all. Large fleet of nuclear reactors are very expensive, technical complicated, they have a lot of drawbacks as well. Except Indians, people in the world are not that impressed by how good this deal is for India, but puzzled by the way how Americans single-mindly pushed it.

Indians are the people of face and symbolism, and desperate for respect, sure Americans understand that. They want to show how good and special they treat India, and the world understands that as well - so the text of the test is not explicitly put in the deal. As for Chinese I think Indians over blow their role to oppose it as well, no concrete evidence to back up Indian claims Chinese trying to block it. If the 6 western countries could ignore US' opinion to oppose the deal, they won't be dictated by Chinese neither. The mentality of Indians are very similar to some Taiwan officials, who interpret the every Chinese move as conspiracy, a sign of inferiority complex, understandably as well - one of the reason for Americans to push it through.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 16:25
Raising another 45 divisions (many of them from Western Europe), would have bankrupted the US and Western Europe? The US was spending about 10% of GDP on defense during the coldwar. During WWII it spent 37%.

Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org) (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)And our women were working in factories with wartime rationing and people working overtime without compensation. You're not going to get a wartime footing during peacetime no matter how much you push for it.


I hope the Indian govt is not that stupid to test while a reactor is being built.

The Indian govt (and the American ambassador to India) says that India doesn't have a legal commitment against testing. Only a voluntary moratorium. ("Moratorium" means suspension/delay not a permanent ban)An old saying amongst government circles, it's funny how tempoary becomes permenant.

The point here is that there is a price to be paid. It's not a free lunch to test.


India should not try to get into an arms race with China. It should only have enough weapons to make sure that nuclear deterrence works. So India shouldn't care if China has 1000 warheads. But if China builds an effective missile shield that can shoot down 100 missiles simultaneously (very very hard with current technology), then we need to have 101 warheads.What India needs is to make the shield irrevelent. If you play a game with the other guy having that much of a lead, you will lose. India needs to play another game in which she should at least have an even chance of winning.

If you play the nuclear game with China, they have that much of a lead that at best, you can hurt China, they will destroy India.


Washington and Moscow didn't prevent Chinese proliferation to Pakistan. They are not omnipotent.You can thank God for that because their other choice was a nuclear strike across to Lop Nor. You think you have it bad now with 1000 Tibetan refugees every two weeks, imagine 100,000 refugees every two weeks.

However, make no mistake about this. We were on the verge of WWIII mainly because the Chinese were blustering to no end. Thank God sanity prevailed somewhere in the Kremlin.


And you can guarantee that, how?The CCP has done it. The CMC owns the nukes but the 2nd Artillery Force owns the delivery vehicles on which those nukes are to be used. The CCP has been so tight fisted about them that even during exercises, the 2AF could not even get an exercise release.

That is why the 2AF has moved to a conventional force. No egghead suit is going to tell them when and how to use their rockets. The 2AF has done some extremely hard pioneer work in this field. They have gone from a 5 rocket salvo on a single target down to 3.

Now, what does this mean? It means that out of that 1400 rockets that they have, they could in theory destroy some 300 targets with 200 rockets left over for 2ndary strikes/missions.

I don't know how far along that they are with MARV but although I don't think it can find a carrier, it does give a further increase in accuracy to stationary targets.


If China doesn't care about nuclear weapons, how about we have a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons of India, China and Pakistan simultaneously. How do you think China would react to that proposal?Not at all because China's nukes ain't aimed at India and even today, they only have 200 warheads or so with no desire for more even though they have the materials for at least 5000.


And you are so sure that it remains so and will remain so forever?Yes, until anti-matter bombs come into being. If you look at the trend of nuclear weapons world wide, you will see that nukes ain't the wonder weapon everybody makes them out to be. We have far more effective conventional systems that for the most part forced the retirement of tac nukes.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 16:49
The point here is that there is a price to be paid. It's not a free lunch to test.

I agree. The point is that the deal didn't increase the cost of a test.



If you play the nuclear game with China, they have that much of a lead that at best, you can hurt China, they will destroy India.

India is not playing a nuclear arms race with China (just like China is not playing one with Russia). But India is not going to give up its minimum deterrent with regard to China (just like China is not going to give up its nukes even though Russia has a huge lead). China will not give up its nukes just because US and Russia are ahead of it. Same goes for India.



You can thank God for that because their other choice was a nuclear strike across to Lop Nor. You think you have it bad now with 1000 Tibetan refugees every two weeks, imagine 100,000 refugees every two weeks.

However, make no mistake about this. We were on the verge of WWIII mainly because the Chinese were blustering to no end. Thank God sanity prevailed somewhere in the Kremlin.


So we agree that Washington and Moscow cannot dictate nuclear policy to other countries. (The do have influence through).



The CCP has done it. The CMC owns the nukes but the 2nd Artillery Force owns the delivery vehicles on which those nukes are to be used. The CCP has been so tight fisted about them that even during exercises, the 2AF could not even get an exercise release.

That is why the 2AF has moved to a conventional force. No egghead suit is going to tell them when and how to use their rockets. The 2AF has done some extremely hard pioneer work in this field. They have gone from a 5 rocket salvo on a single target down to 3.

Now, what does this mean? It means that out of that 1400 rockets that they have, they could in theory destroy some 300 targets with 200 rockets left over for 2ndary strikes/missions.

I don't know how far along that they are with MARV but although I don't think it can find a carrier, it does give a further increase in accuracy to stationary targets.

No matter what you say, the bottom line is that India cannot trust the CCP not to ever use nukes when push comes to shove. The only way to guarantee that is for India to have nukes.



Not at all because China's nukes ain't aimed at India and even today, they only have 200 warheads or so with no desire for more even though they have the materials for at least 5000.

Yes, until anti-matter bombs come into being. If you look at the trend of nuclear weapons world wide, you will see that nukes ain't the wonder weapon everybody makes them out to be. We have far more effective conventional systems that for the most part forced the retirement of tac nukes.

India doesnot want an arms race with China (it will lose because its economy is smaller). As of now India has a small arsenal and has no plans of increasing it. But it needs the option to respond if the circumstances change. India is not going to match China nuke for nuke. It just have to have enough to inflict unacceptable damage on the Chinese if they used one on India first. This hopefully will mean that nukes are never used at all.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 16:59
India is not playing a nuclear arms race with China (just like China is not playing one with Russia). But India is not going to give up its minimum deterrent with regard to China (just like China is not going to give up its nukes even though Russia has a huge lead). China will not give up its nukes just because US and Russia are ahead of it. Same goes for India.Ok, we have a major disconnect here. Are you familiar with the concept of force calculations? A deterrent is not a barrier. The Chinese cannot inflict intolerable damage on either the US nor Russia. At 200 warheads, it just raises the ante but by no means does it mean that it can strike back with sufficent retalitory strength to stop either Russia nor the US nor even hurt a city of sufficent size.


So we agree that Washington and Moscow cannot dictate nuclear policy to other countries. (The do have influence through).No, I do not agree. I've spelled it out very plainly. War.


No matter what you say, the bottom line is that India cannot trust the CCP not to ever use nukes when push comes to shove. The only way to guarantee that is for India to have nukes.Refer to the above. Indian nukes do not guarrantee against Chinese nuclear strikes. In fact, they invite it.


India doesnot want an arms race with China (it will lose because its economy is smaller). As of now India has a small arsenal and has no plans of increasing it. But it needs the option to respond if the circumstances change. India is not going to match China nuke for nuke. It just have to have enough to inflict unacceptable damage on the Chinese if they used one on India first. This hopefully will mean that nukes are never used at all.Refer to the above again.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 17:27
Ok, we have a major disconnect here. Are you familiar with the concept of force calculations? A deterrent is not a barrier. The Chinese cannot inflict intolerable damage on either the US nor Russia. At 200 warheads, it just raises the ante but by no means does it mean that it can strike back with sufficent retalitory strength to stop either Russia nor the US nor even hurt a city of sufficent size.

No, I do not agree. I've spelled it out very plainly. War.

Refer to the above. Indian nukes do not guarrantee against Chinese nuclear strikes. In fact, they invite it.

Refer to the above again.

So according to you Chinese nukes are worthless against the US and Soviet Union, right? So you would support China giving up its nukes.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 17:28
Yes, I would as I do all getting rid of all nuclear weapons.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 17:30
Yes, I would as I do all getting rid of all nuclear weapons.

Why does it matter? According to you China having nukes increases the chance of Russian nuclear strike on China. So China should give up the nukes unilaterally.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 17:41
Why does it matter?You never prepared to receive a nuclear strike. Those of us who stood the wall never had any doubt what we intend to do with those weapons and that is to burn babies alive.


According to you China having nukes increases the chance of Russian nuclear strike on China. So China should give up the nukes unilaterally.They won't for the very fact that with nukes, you can never be conquered. You can only be destroyed.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 17:44
Let me make my view clear:

1. Nuclear weapons are very bad.
2. I support elimination of all nuclear weapons. (India supports this too.)
3. India should only eliminate its weapons along with other nuclear powers, not unilaterally.

Anybody asking India to disarm unilaterally while not asking China to do disarm unilaterally is being hypocritical.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 17:47
Who's asking India to disarm? What I am pointing out to you that India did a certain force calculation that it is comfortable with and that force calculation does not include a 2000 warhead arsenal which again is the only way MIRV makes sense.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 17:49
You never prepared to receive a nuclear strike. Those of us who stood the wall never had any doubt what we intend to do with those weapons and that is to burn babies alive.


I am sorry I wasn't clear. I do support elimination of all nuclear weapons.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 17:56
Who's asking India to disarm? What I am pointing out to you that India did a certain force calculation that it is comfortable with and that force calculation does not include a 2000 warhead arsenal which again is the only way MIRV makes sense.

I am happy that India thinks it doesn't need 2000 warhead arsenal or MIRVs. I am also happy that it retains the flexibility to reevaluate that decision when circumstances change. And I am happy that the nuclear deal allows India the flexibility.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 18:00
Ok, then why test for MIRV?

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 18:05
Ok, then why test for MIRV?

India doesn't have any plans to test. It just wants the flexibility to change its mind if/when the security situation in its neighborhood changes.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 18:07
You're not understanding. If there is no desire for a 2000 warhead arsenal (and practically, it is not an option even if India wants it), then why test for MIRV?

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 18:11
One advantage of India not having signed the CTBT is that it can be used as a bargaining chip to have India treated as a NWS in the NPT. I believe India would sign the CTBT in a heartbeat if in return India is allowed to sign the NPT as a NWS.

Of course, this is not a possibility right now. But things can change. In 1974 nobody could even imagine India getting a waiver from the NSG.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 18:13
You're not understanding. If there is no desire for a 2000 warhead arsenal (and practically, it is not an option even if India wants it), then why test for MIRV?

Neither you nor I can predict the situation a few decades into the future. It is all about keeping the options open.

pravin
11 Sep 08,, 18:15
Of course, this is not a possibility right now. But things can change. In 1974 nobody could even imagine India getting a waiver from the NSG.

Perfectly spoken

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 18:16
In a couple of decades, MIRV would be obsolete.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 18:18
In a couple of decades, MIRV would be obsolete.

If nuclear weapons are obsolete in a couple of decades, India would be happy to give up the right to test then.

dilawar
11 Sep 08,, 18:20
You're not understanding. If there is no desire for a 2000 warhead arsenal (and practically, it is not an option even if India wants it), then why test for MIRV?

SALT treaty regulations on missiles were one reason why MIRV capability became essential to USSR and US also the countries with 5000 plus warheads. But the importance of having MIRV capability is not solely dependent on having a 2000 plus warhead inventory.

I would prefer MIRV capabilty on SLBMs which for India as a second strike is extremely important. MIRV capability increases survivability and damage. So even if one looks at 200-500 warhead scenarios, there's nothing wrong in having MIRV capability.

Sumku
11 Sep 08,, 18:25
In a couple of decades, MIRV would be obsolete.

Can you please clarify on that. IMO the coming Cold War v2.0 would take MIRV's to new heights.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 18:26
Space based kinetic weapons are the next rage right now.

Sumku
11 Sep 08,, 18:34
Space based kinetic weapons are the next rage right now.

Sir, wasn't the same logic applied to BM's when MIRV's arrived and to BM's when again the Cruise Missiles came. It was even stated that there's no need to have foreign bases when the USN started building Super Carriers and Yet today the significance of having foreign bases has only increased not decreased

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 18:40
No. BMs always had the advantage of rapid reaction that other systems do not. I do not recall any discussion of getting rid of BMs. There was the Walk-In-the-Woods between Reagan and Gorbachev in which they discussed the possibility of only cruise missiles and no PERSHINGs but that was shot down by the military in that for counter-force operations, only the PERSHINGs can deliver the TOT.

Space based kinetic systems dramatically increases that reaction time a 100 fold since you need speed in order to have kinetic kills. It is also cheaper since you need a targeting system and not a guidance system which means that you can leave the expensive eletronics outside the KV.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 18:45
I would prefer MIRV capabilty on SLBMs which for India as a second strike is extremely important. MIRV capability increases survivability and damage. So even if one looks at 200-500 warhead scenarios, there's nothing wrong in having MIRV capability.I thought about that but there is several problems with that. Indian missiles are not that accurate where such small warheads could do the required damage. You could aim for Beijing but your chances of hitting the CMC HQ is rather limited or if you aimed for a port, is there enough confidence to take out the docks with such a small warhead.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 18:49
I thought about that but there is several problems with that. Indian missiles are not that accurate where such small warheads could do the required damage. You could aim for Beijing but your chances of hitting the CMC HQ is rather limited or if you aimed for a port, is there enough confidence to take out the docks with such a small warhead.

We are getting lost discussing current capabilities. A treaty is signed looking decades into the future. None of what you said above would necessarily be true a couple of decades into the future.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 18:53
No treaty is signed looking decades into the future. Every treaty is signed for immediate effect. In this case, the door is now open to salesmen and kicking the tires. In order for India to benefit from this deal, they have to know what's available now.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 18:58
No treaty is signed looking decades into the future. Every treaty is signed for immediate effect. In this case, the door is now open to salesmen and kicking the tires. In order for India to benefit from this deal, they have to know what's available now.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate that with regard to the nuclear deal? India doesnot get access to weapons or MIRVs or SLBMs due to the deal.

I am not sure about Canada, but I hope India evaluates the consequences decades into the future before it signs a deal which it plans to keep.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 19:06
I don't understand. Can you elaborate that with regard to the nuclear deal? India doesnot get access to weapons or MIRVs or SLBMs due to the deal.I've said nothing of the sort. I will clarify that the NSG does not view positive yield tests in any good light. However, that does not preclude India from doing as many zero yeild tests as they want. India would get no help from anyone in this field but there are no constraints of India fielding as many nuclear systems as she wants.


I am not sure about Canada, but I hope India evaluates the consequences decades into the future before it signs a deal which it plans to keep.Which is why we have built into the Treaties a withdrawl clause and a review clause.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 19:09
Which is why we have built into the Treaties a withdrawl clause and a review clause.

North Korea and Iran are finding out that withdrawing from the NPT is not exactly a cake walk, if you are not a superpower.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 19:12
North Korea did not count on China turning hostile to the point of invasion. Iran opting out of the NPT is an invitation to war.

Ray
11 Sep 08,, 19:14
Sir,

China was sanctioned for Tianamen Square. Militarily, it set them back 10-15 years. Economically, it set them back 5-10 years.

After Tianamen Square, Beijing had to mortgage its soul to the US greenback to win back that loss. It wasn't easy and it was not all profitable for the Chinese.

Colonel,

China's greatness is that they are quick change artistes and they couch it with pleasant words to disarm.

Trade and economy are the soft weapons of war.

China leads!

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 19:14
North Korea did not count on China turning hostile to the point of invasion. Iran opting out of the NPT is an invitation to war.

So perhaps they should have thought about the consequences of signing the NPT decades into the future, before they signed it, right?

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 20:16
So perhaps they should have thought about the consequences of signing the NPT decades into the future, before they signed it, right?North Korea did not have much choice in the matter. Stalin did not allow them to have the bomb.

Also, how could the Kims know that they would lose the protection of the biggest and meanest tank army in history?

Lastly, China also was not in favour of the bomb for North Korea to the point that when they tested, China collapsed the North Korean economy and moved their best armies to the border.

All in all, North Korea did not had much choice but to sign.

As for Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran did not sign the NPT, the Imperial State of Iran did. The Islamic Republic inherited the rights and obligations of the NPT. Thus, your statement that both should have considered decades into the future is misplaced and misguided.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 20:26
It still shows that countries (esp non-superpowers) cannot easily withdraw from treaties they sign, and doesn't support your statement: " Which is why we have built into the Treaties a withdrawl clause and a review clause."

Hence India should think about the future consequences before it signs a treaty. (Even if you cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy, doesn't mean that you shouldn't even try)

If you disagree with this, can you please call up your MP and ask them to stop wasting taxpayer money on every strategic/military planning for the future. Why worry about the future, right?

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 20:30
It still shows that countries (esp non-superpowers) cannot easily withdraw from treaties they sign, and doesn't support your statement: " Which is why we have built into the Treaties a withdrawl clause and a review clause."It is easy to withdraw. The North Koreans did it in one statement.


If you disagree with this, can you please call up your MP and ask them to stop wasting taxpayer money on every strategic/military planning for the future. Why worry about the future, right?We don't. We deal with every day crisis far more than any future plans and what future plans we do hold is based on current realities, not pie in the sky.

mthambi
11 Sep 08,, 20:55
I for one want India to spend time and money thinking about the future. It is up to Canada if it want to wing it.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 08,, 21:18
If I were India, I pay much more attention to present day stuff so that you don't end up with the Gorshkov again.

dilawar
11 Sep 08,, 23:32
Lastly, China also was not in favour of the bomb for North Korea to the point that when they tested, China collapsed the North Korean economy and moved their best armies to the border.

Officer, can you please elaborate on that. I thought the NK economy was collpased before testing and after too. Plus moving the 'best' Army to the border post NK testing ?? What's BEST Army? Crack Infantries? Crack SF's? Crack paras?

Here you're defending a China thats proliferated to NK and trusting them wholesale on what information i do not know. Can you back that up with links or something on the same?

Cactus
11 Sep 08,, 23:56
Officer, can you please elaborate on that. I thought the NK economy was collpased before testing and after too. Plus moving the 'best' Army to the border post NK testing ?? What's BEST Army? Crack Infantries? Crack SF's? Crack paras?

Here you're defending a China thats proliferated to NK and trusting them wholesale on what information i do not know. Can you back that up with links or something on the same?

Here OOE is referring to the 39th Group Army, one of PLA's most mechanized force-formations (akin to your Strike Corps).

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 08,, 00:00
I'm on way out but I'll give you the gist right now before posting the links later

1) The Chinese frozed all Korean assets within 48 hours of the test.
2) Border traffic was closed within that period
3) The Chinese stopped shipping electricity south

The Chinese identified that they have moved a division to the North Korean Border. From the cap badge, it was the vanguard of the 38th Group Army. Within a month, another division moved, it was part of the 39th Group Army. These two are the best trained and best armed corps within the PLA, essentially two Operational Maneuver Groups equivlent.

The North Korean nuke was not a Chinese design, mainly because it didn't work but also it failed because of two items. The Pu was not pure enough and the design was an attempt at highly advance Pu device and not a Ur gun design.

Officer of Engineers
13 Sep 08,, 05:02
Pages 15-20

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-topics/19219-north-korea-claims-nuclear-test-15.html

Officer of Engineers
13 Sep 08,, 05:03
And the horse trading finally comes out


World Nuclear Trade Group Agrees to Restrict Sales to India

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A10

A 45-nation group that governs trade in nuclear equipment and materials privately agreed last weekend that none of its members plans to sell sensitive technologies to India, according to sources familiar with the discussion. The agreement undercuts one of the Indian government's key rationales for seeking a civilian nuclear deal with the United States -- that it would open the door for "full civil nuclear cooperation" with the rest of the world.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group's previously undisclosed understanding helped persuade several skeptical member states to support a waiver authorizing nuclear trade with India, the sources said. Winning the NSG waiver was necessary before the Bush administration could submit the landmark U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement to Congress. President Bush transmitted the agreement to Congress late Tuesday night, and administration officials are pressing for action before Congress adjourns later this month.

India has been barred from the worldwide nuclear market since it diverted fuel from civilian reactors to conduct a nuclear test in 1974, leaving it without advanced uranium-enrichment and plutonium-reprocessing technology that is superior to India's homegrown industry. In 2005, the Bush administration proposed freeing India from those constraints through a bilateral agreement, as a way of forging closer ties between the two nations.

The NSG separately is nearing consensus on a total ban on sensitive sales to countries such as India that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- a move that would put such trade even further out of New Delhi's reach. The NSG discussion has received little public attention, but it was another factor in persuading countries such as Ireland, New Zealand and Austria to end their effort to write such trade restrictions into the waiver for India.

"In the discussions about how to handle enrichment and reprocessing, it was made clear that nobody had any plans to transfer such technologies to India in the foreseeable future," said a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was describing private diplomatic exchanges. While such statements were not binding, he said, the NSG countries recognized that they were planning to "tighten up" the rules on such sales in the near future, allowing them to achieve the same restrictions on India later without causing a diplomatic rupture now.

The current NSG guidelines call for members "to exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Several member countries, such as Canada and Argentina, are seeking language that would permit them to develop and sell their own nuclear fuel technology, but all members appear to agree that countries that have not signed the treaty should be banned from such trade.

The NSG waiver for India has generated new momentum for the U.S.-India nuclear deal. Administration officials are asking Congress to sidestep a legal requirement to wait at least 30 days before voting to grant final approval, arguing that a failure to vote this month would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage.

pravin
13 Sep 08,, 05:06
And the horse trading finally comes out


World Nuclear Trade Group Agrees to Restrict Sales to India

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A10

A 45-nation group that governs trade in nuclear equipment and materials privately agreed last weekend that none of its members plans to sell sensitive technologies to India, according to sources familiar with the discussion. The agreement undercuts one of the Indian government's key rationales for seeking a civilian nuclear deal with the United States -- that it would open the door for "full civil nuclear cooperation" with the rest of the world.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group's previously undisclosed understanding helped persuade several skeptical member states to support a waiver authorizing nuclear trade with India, the sources said. Winning the NSG waiver was necessary before the Bush administration could submit the landmark U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement to Congress. President Bush transmitted the agreement to Congress late Tuesday night, and administration officials are pressing for action before Congress adjourns later this month.

India has been barred from the worldwide nuclear market since it diverted fuel from civilian reactors to conduct a nuclear test in 1974, leaving it without advanced uranium-enrichment and plutonium-reprocessing technology that is superior to India's homegrown industry. In 2005, the Bush administration proposed freeing India from those constraints through a bilateral agreement, as a way of forging closer ties between the two nations.

The NSG separately is nearing consensus on a total ban on sensitive sales to countries such as India that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- a move that would put such trade even further out of New Delhi's reach. The NSG discussion has received little public attention, but it was another factor in persuading countries such as Ireland, New Zealand and Austria to end their effort to write such trade restrictions into the waiver for India.

"In the discussions about how to handle enrichment and reprocessing, it was made clear that nobody had any plans to transfer such technologies to India in the foreseeable future," said a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was describing private diplomatic exchanges. While such statements were not binding, he said, the NSG countries recognized that they were planning to "tighten up" the rules on such sales in the near future, allowing them to achieve the same restrictions on India later without causing a diplomatic rupture now.

The current NSG guidelines call for members "to exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Several member countries, such as Canada and Argentina, are seeking language that would permit them to develop and sell their own nuclear fuel technology, but all members appear to agree that countries that have not signed the treaty should be banned from such trade.

The NSG waiver for India has generated new momentum for the U.S.-India nuclear deal. Administration officials are asking Congress to sidestep a legal requirement to wait at least 30 days before voting to grant final approval, arguing that a failure to vote this month would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Sir would France and Russia be having restraint

Officer of Engineers
13 Sep 08,, 05:10
Apparently


all members appear to agree that countries that have not signed the treaty should be banned from such trade.

mthambi
13 Sep 08,, 05:12
And the horse trading finally comes out


How do you square it with this? I guess we will have to wait and see.

The Hindu : Front Page : Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France (http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/13/stories/2008091361791200.htm)

Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France
Special Correspondent
Ready for “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with India: Ambassador

New Delhi: Even as controversy continues to bedevil the terms of India’s proposed bilateral nuclear commerce with the United States, France stepped forward Friday to declare it was ready and open to engage in “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with the Indian side.
Unlike the U.S., which does not wish to make binding commitments on fuel supply or grant irrevocable reprocessing rights to India, France has made it clear that the provision of fuel for any reactors it sells as well as reprocessing are not issues. “We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel,” French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont told reporters here.
But in line with the apparent political commitment India has made to not ink deals with other suppliers until the ‘123 agreement’ with the U.S. passes through Congress, the ambassador was unwilling to say when the framework agreement for bilateral nuclear cooperation initialled during the visit to Delhi by President Nikolas Sarkozy this January would finally be signed. “We have to complete some procedures for it to be signed and we are presently discussing with India this issue in terms of timing.”
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be in Marseilles on September 29 for the India-European Union summit and in Paris on September 30 for a bilateral summit with Mr. Sarkozy. But it is far from clear whether India will be ready to sign its agreement by then.
Asked what these “procedures” — whose completion was holding up the actual signing — were, Mr. Bonnafont gave, as an example, the preparation of “an official Hindi translation” of the Indo-French draft agreement. (Indian officials say a Hindi translation is needed because the English original has also been translated into French. A second procedure to be completed, they say, involves France securing clearance for the agreement from Euratom).
The ambassador said the passage of the Indian waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group last week marked the culmination of a process that “[France] had initiated in a way” when Jacques Chirac, who was the French President at the time, came to India in 1998 and suggested “a special status needed to be created” for India to enable it to access nuclear supplies from abroad.
France has a “specificity in the world” as far as the capability of its nuclear industry was concerned, he said, and its national company, Areva, was currently developing a new generation of nuclear reactors - the EPR.
“This new generation will be proposed to India”, he said, adding that France envisaged cooperation in four distinct areas: scientific collaboration and research, training, safety and industrial collaboration.
Including Areva, there were 35 French companies which were looking to get involved in different aspects of the nuclear power generation sector in India, the ambassador said.
France currently has 58 nuclear power plants in operation which collectively generate 80 per cent of the country’s electricity production.

Officer of Engineers
13 Sep 08,, 05:21
I think the key issue is this


"to exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

mthambi
13 Sep 08,, 05:33
I think the key issue is this

I think the "restraint" part was well know before. About the NSG considering a ban on reprocessing technology, I would take the word of the French ambassador over an "anonymous US official".

Officer of Engineers
13 Sep 08,, 05:36
Maybe but at least now we know what kind of horse trading was going on to get those countries to vote yes.

Actually, re-reading this. The French are not violating the supposed NSG requirement.

This is the quote


We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuelIn other words, you're going to use Indian technology to reprocess fuel, not French.

mthambi
13 Sep 08,, 06:18
You are right. The statement is at ambiguous. I'll wait and see what happens.

The One
13 Sep 08,, 06:30
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: Is US losing the war on Al-Qaida, Taliban? (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080065143)

Indo-US N-deal in US interest: Report

Moonis Ijlal

Friday, September 12, 2008, (New Delhi)

The Indo-US civil nuclear deal is in "America's interest" and the failure of the Congress to ratify the landmark pact would make US nuclear suppliers the "victims", a media report has said.

Maintaining that the historic agreement is now "almost" a done deal, The Washington Post reminded US lawmakers that should they fail to get the legislation through by the adjournment date of September 26, it is the American business houses that stand to be short changed.

"The agreement has already been amply debated and discussed, and on balance, it is in America's interest," The Post said in its lead editorial "Yes for an Answer". The US nuclear cooperation with India ceased after the latter's first nuclear test in 1974.

"But in today's changed global situation, the Bush administration has reasonably calculated that the benefits from a 'strategic partnership' with democratic, fast-growing India outweigh the risks of ending a punitive posture," the influential newspaper said.

It cautioned the if the Congress "backs out now", "the only victims will be American nuclear suppliers, who would have to stand aside while French and Russian companies expand India's nuclear power system".

The Washington-based daily underlined that the nuclear agreement enjoys the approval of the US executive branch, Indian government, the UN agency in charge of nuclear safeguards and a 45-nation international organization.

In the given circumstances, the report said, it would be "strange indeed, if a Congress controlled by Democrats, who usually favor diplomacy and multilateralism, were to scuttle the deal now".

However, The Post cautioned that "unless Congress promptly passes a law permitting an expedited vote, the India deal could be put off until the next administration, and the next Congress, with all the uncertainty that entails".

xunil
13 Sep 08,, 12:54
It's no big deal. So India did something bad and avoided the punishment. It will be America's reputation in jeopardize, if India test again. India can import nuclear plant, but that won't change the energy crisis. Because comparing to other electricity generator using water and coal, nuclear is still too expensive.

dilawar
13 Sep 08,, 14:07
Officer, Thanks for the links. Will go through them.

Also i think there's a bit of dichotomy in the statements emanating from all sides. Like Mthambi says, better to wait a bit and see what comes out in the US Congress.

pravin
13 Sep 08,, 15:24
It's no big deal. So India did something bad and avoided the punishment. It will be America's reputation in jeopardize, if India test again. India can import nuclear plant, but that won't change the energy crisis. Because comparing to other electricity generator using water and coal, nuclear is still too expensive.

its cheaper in the long run

Officer of Engineers
13 Sep 08,, 15:27
Also i think there's a bit of dichotomy in the statements emanating from all sides. Like Mthambi says, better to wait a bit and see what comes out in the US Congress.There won't be anything to change. It's ratification. Not negotiation.

What I was surprised at was the back handed way the NSG dealt with this. What they are essentially saying is that India has the right to buy and the NSG has the right not to sell.

The Russians maybe masters at chess but don't ever play poker against the Americans.

pravin
13 Sep 08,, 15:33
There won't be anything to change. It's ratification. Not negotiation.

What I was surprised at was the back handed way the NSG dealt with this. What they are essentially saying is that India has the right to buy and the NSG has the right not to sell.

The Russians maybe masters at chess but don't ever play poker against the Americans.

Sir do you think theal is a method to contain India.What if India doesn't procure fuel or reactors from Us

pravin
13 Sep 08,, 15:37
India may sign N-cooperation with France

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is all set to ink a nuclear-co-operation agreement with France later in September, even if the 123 agreement is not approved by the US Congress by then.

Speaking to NDTV, government sources have made it clear that America cannot expect India to wait indefinitely.

The new tough line could be a direct result of a contentious letter written by US President George W Bush to the US Congress earlier this week, asking the Congress to endorse the 123 agreement, but clarifying that assurances on fuel supply were political promises and not legally binding.

Indian sources say that they have conveyed their reservations to the Americans and if the 123 agreement is compromised, India even retains the option not to sign it.


NDTV.com: India may sign N-cooperation with France (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080065243)

Officer of Engineers
13 Sep 08,, 15:41
I really don't know all the implications of this. This is still a backroom deal and I until I see the documentation, I can't tell what they are planning.

Ray
14 Sep 08,, 00:27
France is the only country that will go against the US wish.

Even Russia will not displease the US.

bengalraider
14 Sep 08,, 03:08
France is the only country that will go against the US wish.

Even Russia will not displease the US.

sir,given the recent noises from the kremlin i wouldn't be too sure about that:biggrin:
putin might go ahead just to irritate the us once again if not for anything else.

The One
14 Sep 08,, 07:26
Ask Vikram Chandra

India secured a historic waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) by consensus to carry out nuclear commerce ending three decades of isolation and taking the Indo-US nuclear deal a step closer to fulfilment.

The debate now moves to an even bigger audience- YOU. Do you consider the Indo-US nuclear deal as India's biggest foreign policy initiative or is your voice one among the shrill cries of “betrayal” and more by the Opposition parties.

Here are some answers from Vikram Chandra on what the NSG waiver means for India. Do keep sending us your thoughts and comments on India's historic win at Vienna.

NDTV.com (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/askvikram08_1.aspx)

Ray
14 Sep 08,, 07:47
sir,given the recent noises from the kremlin i wouldn't be too sure about that:biggrin:
putin might go ahead just to irritate the us once again if not for anything else.

Irritate, yes.

Displease, no.

Remember the Russian cryogenic for India fiasco?

bengalraider
14 Sep 08,, 07:55
Irritate, yes.

Displease, no.

Remember the Russian cryogenic for India fiasco?

the kremlin has already displeased the U.S with the SO affair, i think putin is way more confrontational than yelstin and he is not going to back down in front of any american pressure.

Ray
14 Sep 08,, 09:27
the kremlin has already displeased the U.S with the SO affair, i think putin is way more confrontational than yelstin and he is not going to back down in front of any american pressure.

Yeltsin was a drunk.

Let us not compare him with any world leader, not even Idi Amin, the NCO!

bengalraider
14 Sep 08,, 10:23
Yeltsin was a drunk.

Let us not compare him with any world leader, not even Idi Amin, the NCO!

:biggrin::biggrin:

Skywatcher
14 Sep 08,, 22:05
Yeltsin was a drunk.

Let us not compare him with any world leader, not even Idi Amin, the NCO!

Burn!!! :biggrin:

As for the nuke deal, India probably won't be spending too much in the next five years. We'll have to wait until 2012-15 for the big ticket items to come up. Call it a hunch of mine if you will.

bengalraider
15 Sep 08,, 04:00
Source: India, France to Enhance Nuclear Trade, Co-operation | India Defence (http://www.india-defence.com/reports/4017)
India, France to Enhance Nuclear Trade, Co-operation
Dated 14/9/2008

France will become the first country to conduct nuclear business with India. Both countries will sign a previously agreed text for bilateral civil nuclear cooperation on September 30 during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Paris, according to the Hindustan Times Sunday.

With this, both New Delhi and Paris have signaled that they won't wait for the ratification of the civilian nuclear agreement between India and the United States, which is now before the U.S. Congress. So, even if the U.S. Congress doesn't pass the deal, India will become a nuclear customer for France, the report said.

It also said that with the French already ready with the ink and paper, Russia can't be far behind. Sources confirmed a statement made by Russian Ambassador to India, Vyacheslav Trubnikov on Saturday, that an Indo-Russian agreement to buy reactors and fuel will be signed during the visit of President Dimitry Medvedev to New Delhi in December.

India is looking to buy uranium from Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) nations willing to sell to India.

However, recently India was ruffled by U.S. President George W. Bush's communication to the U.S. Congress suggesting that Washington had made no legally binding commitments on the supply of nuclear fuel to New Delhi. India plans to raise these issues before the two countries finally sign the deal.

Mr. Bush has invited Prime Minster Manmohan Singh to Washington on September 25 when both sides hope to sign the agreement, provided it has been approved by the U.S. Congress by then, sources said Saturday.

Copyright © 2008 India Defence. All Rights Reserved.

the french are here ,the russians not far behind.....waiting for the Americans to show up as well:biggrin:

The One
02 Oct 08,, 07:57
India N-powered: Senate clears historic nuclear deal

Sarah Jacob

Thursday, October 02, 2008, (Washington)

The US Congress has ratified the 123 Agreement after an overwhelming vote in favour of it in the US Senate.

There were 86 senators who voted in favour of the deal, without amendments that could have killed it. The so called killer amendments required that the 123 be reworded, to unambiguously say that America would stop all nuclear trade with India if another weapon is tested. However, they were shot down.

The Bill will now go to US President George W Bush for it to be signed into law.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected in New Delhi on Friday and along with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, both will most likely hold a formal signing ceremony in New Delhi.

While there is certainly cause for cheer among the deal's supporters because of the vote, the deal is still not without controversy.

Some of the language in the deal is still problematic to India, especially on fuel supply assurances and now India's looking to President Bush's signing statement to override some of them.

India now has two nuclear agreements in its bag, one with the US and the other with France.

The One
02 Oct 08,, 08:02
India, France finalise civil nuclear cooperation pact

Press Trust of India

Tuesday, September 30, 2008, (Paris)

India and France on Tuesday finalised a landmark agreement on civil nuclear cooperation that covered supply of reactors and atomic fuel in the first concrete step to bring New Delhi back into the nuclear mainstream ending 34 years of nuclear isolation.

The agreement to be initialled later on Tuesday after summit talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and French President Nicolas Sarkozy will form the basis of wide ranging bilateral cooperation from basic and applied research to full civil nuclear cooperation including reactors and fuel supplies, nuclear safety, radiation and environment protection and nuclear fuel cycle management.

The atomic pact comes three weeks after India got the crucial NSG waiver that cleared the decks for New Delhi's global nuclear trade.

The atomic pact is one of the three agreements to be signed during Singh's two-day visit to Paris. The other two relates to social security matters which will benefit Indian and French nationals staying in each others countries on short duration up to five years.

The One
02 Oct 08,, 08:03
France ends India's nuclear isolation

Barkha Dutt

Tuesday, September 30, 2008, (Paris)

India's nuclear isolation officially ended on Tuesday with a historic agreement being signed between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and French President Nicholas Sarkozy.

Pitched as part of a wider strategic relationship, a joint statement released by both countries said co-operation is now possible in the areas of nuclear fuel, trade and security.

Chairman of the Department of Atomic Energy, Anil Kakokdar, told NDTV that this was a big day for India. "I am a matter of fact man," he said, "but this view can enhance civil nuclear co-operation."

Asked whether India would wait for the 123 Agreement with America to be signed before beginning nuclear commerce with France, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon would only say, "These are parallel tracks".

However, it's clear that with this agreement India hopes to build the pressure on Washington, currently embroiled in its own financial meltdown. The US Senate is still to approve the agreement.

The One
02 Oct 08,, 08:03
Nuke test by India will have serious consequences: Rice

Press Trust of India

Wednesday, October 01, 2008, (Washington)

Faced with killer amendments tabled by two Democrats in the Senate, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday said that a nuclear test by India would result in "most serious consequences", including automatic cut-off of US cooperation as well as a number of other sanctions.

As the Senate began a debate on a legislation that will stamp the approval on the Indo-US nuclear deal, Rice wrote a letter urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go through with the process without amendments, saying the Administration would prefer a "clean legislation".

"I understand that some Senators have questions about the impact of an Indian nuclear test on this initiative. We believe the Indian government intends to uphold the continuation of the nuclear testing moratorium it affirmed to the United States in 2005 and reiterated to the broader international community as recently as September 5, 2008," she said.

The Senate was originally expected to consider the Dorgan and Bingaman amendments pertaining to implications in the event of India conducting a nuclear test.

However, on the floor while taking amendments, the Senator from North Dakota Byron Dorgan announced that the two amendments would be merged into one.

The merged amendment, if adopted, would ensure that the US ceases nuclear cooperation with India in the event of New Delhi detonates a nuclear weapon.

Appreciating Reid's consideration of the Bill "within such an extraordinary time-frame", Rice said they wouldn't be asking for such exceptional action if they did not believe it was necessary to complete an initiative on which both the Administration and the Congress have worked very hard and on a thoroughly bi-partisan basis since 2005.

AchtungSpitFire
02 Oct 08,, 17:55
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS909_USINDI_D_20081001185223.jpg

The dynamics of this picture speaks a 1000 words.

cirrrocco
02 Oct 08,, 18:09
Senate Approves Nuclear-Energy Pact With India - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122296173083898559.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

The U.S. Senate passed a landmark nuclear pact with India, opening the door for American energy companies to enter the fast-growing Indian market.

The agreement, which President George W. Bush made a top priority and is expected to speedily sign, requires India to allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. In its final months, the Bush administration has also been trying to end nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, though those efforts have run into roadblocks in recent weeks.
[nuclear pact with India] Reuters

President Bush met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the Oval Office last week, ahead of the U.S. Senate's passage of a key nuclear-energy deal that will open the Indian market to U.S. companies.

On Wednesday night Washington time, the Senate voted 86-13 to approve the Indian treaty. Mr. Bush, who is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to New Delhi Friday to commemorate final approval, said the agreement "will strengthen our global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner."

The U.S. has sought to strengthen ties with India, which it sees as a potential counterweight to China. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh staked his government's survival on the deal, which he argued was crucial for his nation's energy needs.

India's power-generation capacity is lagging far behind its requirements. The economy has grown an average of 8.7% annually over the past five years. That trend, combined with rising incomes, has lifted electricity demand 9% a year.

Other countries have expressed interest in the Indian energy market, and France concluded its own civilian-nuclear deal with India on Tuesday. For U.S. companies, the deal will open a multibillion-dollar market for the sale of everything from power-transmission equipment to airplanes.

Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi think tank, called the agreement "an important turning point" strategically, but said "from a commercial energy standpoint I think it will turn out to be more hype than reality."

U.S. suppliers of technology and equipment, including General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of Toshiba Corp., hope to benefit from India's nuclear-power plans.

General Electric built nuclear power plants in India in the 1960s and is interested in building new reactors there, as well as providing fuel and other services for new and existing reactors. General Electric said it has had "limited" discussions with Indian officials about the country's energy plans.

Westinghouse Electric, based outside Pittsburgh, plans to build up to eight reactors in India for $5 billion to $7 billion each. It stepped up meetings with government and industry officials in India this <NO1>past <NO>year in anticipation of a nuclear pact.

Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. have used the momentum created by the pact to bid to sell 126 fighter jets to India, in a deal valued at $8 billion to $10 billion.

The White House and State Department held last-minute negotiations over the past two weeks with key members of Congress to get the nuclear deal completed before the president leaves office. The House of Representatives approved the treaty, which was three years in the making, on Sept. 27.

Before the Senate vote, Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, urged approval of the deal, saying, "To have a good strong relationship with this country in this century will be of critical importance to our safety as a nation and to the safety of mankind."

Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, asserted that Mr. Bush failed to set sufficient safeguards against India testing nuclear weapons. The senator said the agreement hadn't received adequate consideration by Congress and that it rewarded India for what he described as its defiance of international nonproliferation principles.

When Mr. Bush and Mr. Singh met in Washington on Sept. 25, the U.S. leader said the deal had "taken a lot of work on both our parts."

Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@dowjones.com, Jackie Range at jackie.range@wsj.com and Paul Glader at paul.glader@wsj.com

dilawar
02 Oct 08,, 18:35
The dynamics of this picture speaks a 1000 words.

Achtung, maybe am a bad reader of body language except when Zardari meets a Palin, but what did you infer from that, (i could'nt anything for that matter). Just curious. Thanks.

Jay
02 Oct 08,, 18:44
The dynamics of this picture speaks a 1000 words.

Achtung, maybe am a bad reader of body language except when Zardari meats a Palin, but what did you infer from that, (i could'nt anything for that matter). Just curious. Thanks.

Manmohan is firm on ground, Bush is bending over backwards to accommodate him? :redface:

But the way they handshake doesn't look right, may be the picture was clicked when they were done shaking. It looks so non committal on both sides.

AchtungSpitFire
02 Oct 08,, 19:12
Manmohan is firm on ground, Bush is bending over backwards to accommodate him? :redface:

But the way they handshake doesn't look right, may be the picture was clicked when they were done shaking. It looks so non committal on both sides.

;)

As with everything, its open to interpretation.

McCain and Obama will both continue an apolitical approach to South Asia thats leans more to the state dept BIR and all the while acknowledging the reality that exists beyond our immediate goals in Pak/Afghan sphere.

dilawar
02 Oct 08,, 19:29
Manmohan is firm on ground, Bush is bending over backwards to accommodate him?

Ah, Thanks indeed. Though i think Bush is bending more sidewards than back. :)

The One
05 Oct 08,, 16:17
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: Indo-US nuke deal will trigger a 'new crisis': Iran (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080067774)

Indo-US nuke deal will trigger a 'new crisis': Iran

Press Trust of India

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Under pressure over its atomic programme, Iran on Sunday warned that the Indo-US nuclear deal has "endangered" the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and will trigger a "new crisis" for the international community.

"The method used by several nuclear states to transfer the technology to non-members of the NPT, will create new crisis for the international community," Deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation Mohammad Saeedi said was quoted as saying by a news agency.

"Cooperation in the area of transfer of nuclear technology to the NPT non-members will endanger the treaty," he said, adding that although India is enjoying nuclear weapons, it is not a signatory to the NPT.

He said that "privileges" to India which is not a member of NPT will endanger the treaty.

According to the NPT, only signatories to the treaty can make use of the rights mentioned in the treaty, Saeedi noted.

Both houses of the US Congress voted in favour of the landmark nuclear deal this week and President George W Bush is expected to sign it into law on Wednesday.

Officer of Engineers
05 Oct 08,, 16:44
Has he even read the Treaty?

The One
09 Oct 08,, 10:39
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: N-deal sealed: Bush signs nuclear bill into law (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080068125)

N-deal sealed: Bush signs nuclear bill into law

Lalit K Jha

Thursday, October 09, 2008, (Washington)

Terming his signing of the nuclear bill as a "big day" for Indo-US relationship, jubilant US President George W Bush on Wednesday said the development sent signals to the rest of the world that countries following path of democracy and responsible behavior would have the United States as a friend.

Flanked by two of his most trusted lieutenant, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush used the occasion to celebrate the hard work done by his administration, his counterparts in India and the Indian American leaders in the past three years with regard to the deal which has ended more than three decades of India's nuclear isolation.

Identifying India as the natural partner of the United States, Bush said the two countries have common interests and values, but still the relationship between the two countries were strained for long time.

"In recent years, we've worked to transform our relationship into a strong strategic partnership. One area where we saw tremendous potential for cooperation is energy. As our economies have grown, our demands for energy have grown, as well. It's become increasingly clear that we need to generate that energy in ways that are safe and clean and secure," Bush said in the presence of a battery of national and Indian media and more than 100 select invited guests including eminent Indian American leaders from all over the country.

Terming the 123 Agreement between the two countries as "landmark" one, Bush said by undertaking new cooperation on civil nuclear energy, India will be able to count on a reliable fuel supply for its civilian reactors, meet the energy demands of its people, and reduce its independence on fossil fuels.

The US on its part would benefit by gaining access to a growing market for civilian nuclear co-operation and materials.

Clarifies doubts

Dwelling in details the benefit of the agreement, Bush used his speech to clarify some of the concerns that the Indian government might had with regard to fuel supply and related issues and also that the bill passed by the Congress and the 123 Agreement are same and there are no changes.

"The legislation makes no changes to the terms of the 123 agreement I submitted to Congress. It enables me to bring that agreement into force and to accept on behalf of the United States all the obligations that are part of the agreement," Bush said.

Bush said the legislation does not change the fuel assurance commitments that the US has made India, as recorded in the 123 agreement. India and the US are expected to sign the 123 Agreement on Friday. The Foreign Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee is likely to arrive in Washington in the next few days for this purpose.

With the Indian Ambassador to the US, Ronen Sen, standing by his side, Bush said the agreement also grants India "advance consent to reprocessing". This would be brought into effect upon the conclusion of arrangements and procedures for a dedicated reprocessing facility under IAEA safeguards, he said.

Signal to the world

As the US under his presidency has initiated efforts to promote democracy in other parts of the world, George Bush said: The agreement sends a signal to the world.

"Nations that follow the path of democracy and responsible behavior will find a friend in the United States of America," he said amidst a round of applause from the Indian American leaders.

"The American people are proud of our strong relationship with India. And I am confident that the friendship between our two nations will grow even closer in the years ahead," he said.

Bush said the legislation will enhance US-India cooperation in using nuclear energy to power our economies. "It will help us work together even more closely to reduce the danger of nuclear proliferation across the world," he said.

Happy Diwali

President George Bush and First Lady Laura Bush also greeted the Indian American community and people of India on the occasion of Diwali.

"Laura and I send our best wishes to the hundreds of millions of people in India and around the world who will begin celebrating the ancient festival of Diwali later this month," he said amidst applause.

It was Bush who started Diwali celebrations at the White House a couple of years ago. It is another matter that so far he has not personally attended any of the White House Diwali celebrations.

"As we offer our prayers for a happy new year, we can be thankful that the relationship between the United States and India has never been more vibrant and more hopeful," Bush said.

Deltacamelately
10 Oct 08,, 10:29
...groan...when do we get the tech?

dilawar
10 Oct 08,, 22:33
...groan...when do we get the tech?

What Tech are you implying Delta?

The One
11 Oct 08,, 06:40
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: India, US sign landmark 123 agreement in Washington (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080068366&ch=633593196726671250)

India, US sign landmark 123 agreement in Washington

Press Trust of India

Saturday, October 11, 2008, (Washington)

India and the US on Saturday operationalised the "path-breaking" bilateral nuclear deal as they signed the 123 Agreement in Washington, with New Delhi insisting that the accord is "legally-binding" on both sides.

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put the final seal on the agreement at an impressive ceremony held in the Benjamin Franklin Room of the State Department, culminating a crisis-ridden process initiated on July 18, 2005 in Washington during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit for talks with US President George W Bush.

"Both India and the US Administration have now completed all our internal procedures to be able to sign this path breaking agreement," Mukherjee said after signing the agreement, paving the way for entry of American companies into the Indian nuclear market after three decades.

"Today is an important day for India-US relations, for global energy security and for our common endeavour to promote sustainable development while addressing environmental challenges," he said at the ceremony held at the State Department.

Legally-binding

Noting that the agreement reflects a "careful balance of rights and obligations", he said "its (agreement's) provisions are now legally-binding on both sides once the agreement enters into force."

This comment assumes significance since the US had said that the contents of the 123 Agreement were a political commitment and not legally binding, triggering concerns in India over aspects like promises on nuclear fuel assurances.

He said the importance of the Agreement is that it was the first step to civil nuclear cooperation and trade between India and the US.

"It is also the first step to India's cooperation with the rest of the world in civil nuclear energy," he said.

He said the signing of the agreement has brought to fruition three years of "extraordinary effort" by both India and the US and it was "one more visible sign of the transformed relationship and partnership" that the two countries are building.

"We now look forward to working with US companies on the commercial steps that will follow to implement this landmark agreement," Mukherjee said.

Energy mix

The External Affairs Minister described the agreement as the first step to India's cooperation with the rest of the world in civil nuclear field.

By reinforcing and increasing the nuclear element in the country's energy mix, which is vital to sustain India's growth rate, nuclear power will directly boost industrial growth, rural development and help expand every vital sector of the country's economy, he said.

"It enables India to respond with her global partners to the challenges of climate change and global warming by strengthening her own economic growth and sustainable development," he said.

Mukherjee said the wide-ranging initiatives announced by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush in July 2005 and March 2006 have led to a transformed relationship between the two countries.

Praising Bush, Rice and the American Congress besides the Indian-American community for making the agreement a reality, the External Affairs Minister said New Delhi looks forward to working with Washington in other fields as well.

He listed these as combating terrorism, containing and fighting pandemics, climate change, ensuring food security, cooperating in disaster relief operations and other regional and global initiatives.

Strategic partnership

Earlier, Rice said that the 123 Agreement was unprecedented and demonstrates the vast potential for strategic partnership between India and the United States.

She said the nuclear deal is not just nuclear cooperation.

"Today we look to the future, a shared future. Let us use the partnership to fight against terrorism, to try a new socialist agenda for the 21st century."

"India and the US can do all these together. Now there is nothing we cannot do," the Secretary of State said.

Prime Minister Singh "literally risked his political future" for the Indo-US nuclear agreement and remade his government again with the support he needed, Rice said, referring to the withdrawal of support to the NDA government by the Left parties.

The formal signing ceremony of the bilateral agreement could not take place during Rice' visit to New Delhi last week due to India's concerns on certain riders in the US Congressional legislation on the nuclear deal, is being held after US President George W. Bush assured New Delhi that the new law makes no changes on fuel supply assurance commitments or the terms of the 123 agreement.

India's Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs also gave the go ahead to Mukherjee to sign the agreement after approving the pact initiated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Bush in 2005.

The signing ceremony was attended among others by India's Ambassador to the US, Ronen Sen and senior State Department officials.

The One
11 Oct 08,, 06:42
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: Full text: Pranab Mukherjee's speech (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080068367&ch=633593196726671250)

Full text: Pranab Mukherjee's speech

NDTV Correspondent

Saturday, October 11, 2008, (Washington, DC)

Your Excellency Dr Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, honourable members of the US Congress, distinguished secretaries of the US Administration and friends of India who have joined us today.

I thank the Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice for her gracious remarks.

Today is an important day for India-US relations, for global energy security and for our common endeavour to promote sustainable development while addressing environmental challenges. In signing the Agreement between India and the United States of America for cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy we have brought to fruition three years of extraordinary effort by both our Governments. The agreement is one more visible sign of the transformed relationship and partnership that our two countries are building together. In doing so, we implement the vision and understandings reached in July 2005 and March 2006 by President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Both India and the US have now completed all our internal procedures to be able to sign this path breaking agreement. We have particularly noted, and welcome the strong bipartisan support with which the US Congress endorsed the Agreement. We see this bipartisan support as a vote for stronger India-US co-operation to the mutual benefit of our peoples. The signing of this agreement has also been preceded by the unanimous approval by the IAEA Board of Governors of the related safeguards arrangements, and by the consensus decision of the forty-five member Nuclear Supply Group to enable cooperation by its members in peaceful uses of nuclear energy with India.

The significance of this Agreement is that it is the first step to civil nuclear co-operation and trade between India and the USA. This is an agreement about civil nuclear co-operation and reflects a careful balance of rights and obligations. The Agreement has been passed by the US Congress without any amendments. Its provisions are now legally binding on both sides once the Agreement enters into force. We look forward to working with US companies on the commercial steps that will follow to implement this landmark Agreement.

It is also the first step to India's cooperation with the rest of the world in civil nuclear energy. By reinforcing and increasing the nuclear element in our country's energy mix, which is vital to sustain our growth rate, nuclear power will directly boost industrial growth, rural development and help us to expand every vital sector of our economy. It also enables India to respond with her global partners to the challenges of climate change and global warming by strengthening her own economic growth and sustainable development.

The wide ranging initiatives announced by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the US President in July 2005 and March 2006 have led to a transformed relationship between our two countries. Our engagement and productive bilateral dialogues include clean and efficient energy, high technology, defence, space, education, agriculture, science & technology, civil aviation, infrastructure development, and information technology, to name just a few. These will, I am sure, gain momentum with the signing of this Agreement. We look forward to working with the US in promoting non-proliferation, containing and fighting pandemics, climate change, ensuring food security, cooperating in disaster relief operations and other regional and global initiatives.

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to each and every person who has made this day a reality:

# To the President of the United States of America who, steadfastly believed in this outcome and made it happen;

# To his Secretary of State Madame Condoleezza Rice, who has spared no effort in working with my Government on challenging detail and who was instrumental in the positive outcome of the negotiations and the finalization of the text of the agreement; and,

# To the US Congress who gave this agreement with India their bi-partisan support.

# The enthusiasm and support of the Indian American community sustained us through this process, and theirs was an invaluable contribution.

The One
11 Oct 08,, 06:43
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: N-deal marks a new era in Indo-US relationship (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080068374)

N-deal marks a new era in Indo-US relationship

Lalit K Jha

Saturday, October 11, 2008, (Washington)

At about 4.16 pm on Friday afternoon in the historic Benjamin Franklin Room of the US State Department, the External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, shook hands with his US counterpart, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

This was not a usual one as could have the two leaders done several times in the past - the last one being only over the weekend in New Delhi.

As Rice and Mukherjee held their hand together, strongly, for about half a minute in front of nearly 100 special guests comprising of top leaders from both countries including diplomats, industrialists and Indian American leaders -body language of two leaders and the applause simply indicated the beginning of a new era between the two countries.

Seconds before Rice and Mukherjee signed the historic 123 Agreement, which not only ends India's nuclear isolation, but brings together the two largest democracies as natural allies; possibly ending decades of mistrust or animosity between the two countries.

"The world's largest democracy and the world's oldest democracy, drawn together by our shared values and increasingly by our many shared interests, now stand as equals, closer together than ever before," asserted Rice in her impressive speech at the Benjamin Franklin room.

Given the historic importance of the event, the signing in ceremony was telecast live by several news channels both in the US and India. The fact that the Bush Administration signed the agreement in the midst of the US' deep financial crisis speaks volumes of the significance it attaches to its growing relationship with India.

"What is most valuable about this agreement is how it unlocks a new and far broader world of potential for our strategic partnership in the 21st century, not just on nuclear cooperation but on every area of national endeavor," Rice said addressing the audience among which included India's industrialists Rata Tata and representatives of the US Corporate sector.

"So today we look to the future, a shared future in which both our nations together rise to our global responsibilities and our global challenges as partners," said Rice, who played a key role in getting this deal done in such a short span of time, which many thought would be a tough task to achieve.
Following Rice's speech, Mukherjee said, "Today is an important day for the India-US relations."

"This agreement is one most visible sign of the transformed relationship and partnership that our two countries are building together," said Mukherjee, who appeared to be jubilant as it brought to fruition three years of extraordinary efforts by both the governments. It was expected, as there were no signs on his face of the tiring journey he had from New Delhi today.

Mukherjee, who was in New York last week to attend the UN General Assembly Session, arrived in New York early in the morning. From there he immediately left for Washington wherein he signed the 123 Agreement in the afternoon.

He was accompanied by the Foreign Secretary, Shivshankar Menon, Prime Minister's Special Advisor on Nuclear Deal, Shyam Saran; Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission of India, Anil Kakodkar, and the Indian Ambassador to the US, Ronen Sen. Except for Sen, rest of the Indian delegation left for India with Mukherjee.

Nearly 100 minutes later after signing the agreement, Mukherjee told reporters at a press conference: "This is a historic occasion. It marks the beginning of resumption of India's civil nuclear cooperation and trade with the US and with the wider international community."

In her speech, Rice acknowledged many thought this day would never come. "But doubts have been silenced now," she said in an apparent reference to the lightening pace at which all the steps in the run up to the agreement has been cleared in the last 90 days.

"The agreement we are about to sign is unprecedented," she asserted. The signing of the 123 Agreement came within two days of the US President George Bush signing into law the US-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act and in less than 10 days of its ratification by the US Congress.

"It demonstrates the vast potential partnership between India and the United States, potential that, frankly, has gone unfulfilled for too many decades of mistrust and now potential that can be fully realised," she said.

Deltacamelately
11 Oct 08,, 07:06
...groan...when do we get the tech?

What Tech are you implying Delta?
Dilawar,
Though I am not quite updated on this, but somebody told me that though the US companies are willing to sell the reactors and associated hardware, they are reluctant or there is some kind of cap on the reprocessing technology.

Officer of Engineers
11 Oct 08,, 15:27
There is no intent of sharing any reprocessing technology until an agreement by the NSG on the rights and privledges of both NPT trade and non-NPT trade.

Besides, India already has reprocessing technology.

Sumku
11 Oct 08,, 16:50
...groan...when do we get the tech?

What Tech are you implying Delta?

Actually IMO, this Question requires some deeper thinking. Yes, When do we get the tech and much much more importantly, What tech ?

Since the biggest supporters of this Deal have also said that we would get the tech after this deal .... but what tech are we talking about.

Officer of Engineers
11 Oct 08,, 17:16
Actually IMO, this Question requires some deeper thinking. Yes, When do we get the tech and much much more importantly, What tech ?

Since the biggest supporters of this Deal have also said that we would get the tech after this deal .... but what tech are we talking about.I'm actually confused about all of this.

The Russians and French refused to allow reprocesing prohibition to be included in the NSG Waiver and yet, they are not rushing in to take advantage of this loophole before it closes.

snapper
12 Oct 08,, 02:59
Hmm bad idea in my opinion but pff...