Looks like the Nuclear arms race has started, I don't trust the Indian government to keep their promise. How can the NSG be so stupid.
====================================
'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence'
MUMBAI: While the jury is still out on whether, post-NSG waiver, India can conduct nuclear tests without inviting immediate NSG censure in addition to the stopping of nuclear fuel supplies from the United States, one of India's top scientists, P K Iyengar, has said that nuclear tests are absolutely necessary to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent.
Iyengar's observation — he played a key role in India's first nuclear test at Pokhran on May 18, 1974 — could ratchet up the politically sensitive issue of India's sovereign right to conduct nuclear test. Speaking to TOI, Iyengar said nuclear tests are a method to satisfy the requirements of the user which, in India's case, is the armed forces. "A test will help meet armed forces' specifications," he said.
Senior nuclear scientists maintain computer simulation is enough to test the validity of an atomic weapon and actual testing isn't needed anymore. But Iyengar strongly disagrees.
"We carry out tests of new aircraft and other products before handing it over to a user. Similarly, a nuclear bomb too must be tested before it's delivered to the user," Iyengar said, dismissing suggestions by a section of nuclear fraternity that computer simulation could substitute actual testing.
Iyengar then added that since there were doubts about the success of the first thermo-nuclear blast on May 11, 1998, he felt this particular test should be repeated.
Iyengar said there is a Stockpile Stewardship Programme in the US which ensures that nuclear weapons work properly. The US reached this stage after carrying out more than 2,000 nuclear tests, Iyengar said, and added, "In stark contrast, India has conducted mere six tests." Russia has 1,000 tests and France close to 300. Questioning the necessity of imposing a voluntary moratorium on further weapon testing by former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee after the May 1998 nuclear weapons tests at Pokhran, Iyengar said Pakistan and China have not done anything similar. "Why should we have imposed a moratorium?" he asked. Echoing Iyengar's views, former Barc chief A N Prasad said, "We live in a neighbourhood which isn't very comfortable. We must be practical."
On computer simulation, Prasad said the issue is debatable because countries like the US have carried out several nuclear tests and obtained their data. "We have six tests and we say that all the required data is available. This is something debatable," he said, hoping the NSG approval doesn't take away India's right to carry out additional nuclear tests.
An article in the September 2008 issue of Physics Today by American nuclear weapon designer Thomas Reed says that in 1982, China's premier Deng Xiaoping began the transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan and in time to other third world countries. "These transfers included blueprints for the ultra-simple CHIC-4 design using highly enriched uranium first tested by China in 1966. It says that a Pakistani derivative of the CHIC-4 was apparently tested in China on May 26, 1990," Reed wrote.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 8:53 AM
NZ says Indian nuke commitments resolved concerns
WELLINGTON, New Zealand: India's clear commitment not to resume testing of nuclear weapons or spread atomic technology helped convince key countries to back a deal allowing it to trade in peaceful nuclear technology, New Zealand's leader said Monday.
"We're satisfied ... that our concerns have been addressed," Prime Minister Helen Clark told reporters.
New Zealand was one of three holdouts who sought to have the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group block a plan for the United States to sell peaceful nuclear technology to India, which has been subject to international bans because it has refused to sign the international nonproliferation treaty.
The group, which governs the legal world trade in nuclear components and know-how, on Saturday signed off on the deal after three days of contentious talks in Vienna and some concessions to countries insistent on holding India to its promises not to touch off a new nuclear arms race.
Initially, more than a dozen nations including China and Japan sought to block approval by the nuclear group, which operates by consensus.
But in negotiations, that bloc dwindled to three — Austria, Ireland and New Zealand — who expressed grave misgivings about bending the rules to accommodate U.S. sales to India.
All three relented Saturday amid intense lobbying. Clark said she was one of several heads of government who was called by U.S. President George W. Bush during the talks.
"In the written statement India has released, it states that it remains committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing," Clark said. "So there is a clear expectation that India will not test."
Any resumption of testing could trigger a meeting and cause the decision to be reviewed, she added.
Other assurances India has given relate to nuclear enrichment, reprocessing, not spreading sensitive technology and being prepared to sign and adhere to an additional protocol opening its civilian nuclear reactors to international inspection, Clark said.
U.S. officials have said that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring the country's atomic program under closer scrutiny and boost international nonproliferation efforts. The plan still needs congressional approval in Washington.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 8:58 AM
INDIA/US: Nuclear Waiver - Blow to Non-Proliferation
Analysis by Praful Bidwai*
NEW DELHI, Sep 8 (IPS) - The special waiver granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) from its nuclear trade rules is being seen as a massive setback to the cause of global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
The NSG's waiver will allow India to resume nuclear commerce with the rest of the world with very few restrictions although India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has refused to accede to any other agreement for preventing the spread of, reducing the numbers of, or abolishing nuclear weapons.
The 45-nation conglomerate, a private arrangement set up after India's first nuclear weapons explosion in 1974, turned a full circle at its special meeting in Vienna, on the weekend, the second one in a fortnight, held at the behest of the United States.
The NSG was originally established "to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".
But it has now done the very opposite by agreeing to the exceptional waiver for India as part of New Delhi's controversial nuclear cooperation deal with the U.S. inked three years ago.
Washington hailed the waiver as "historic" and one that would boost nuclear non-proliferation, while New Delhi described the deal as an "important step" towards meeting the challenges of climate change and sustainable development.
Clearly though, the waiver only became possible because of the strong-arm methods used by the U.S. to bludgeon dissenting NSG members into agreeing to the exemption text it had drafted in consultation with India.
Contrary to the claim that the waiver, and more generally, the U.S.-India nuclear deal, will bring India into the global "non-proliferation mainstream" or promote nuclear restraint on India's part, it will allow India to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal and encourage a nuclear arms race in Asia, particularly in the volatile South Asian subcontinent, where Pakistan emerged as India's nuclear rival 10 years ago.
The special waiver has been roundly criticised by nuclear disarmament and peace groups throughout the world, including in India.
The waiver, says the U.S.-India Deal Working Group of the disarmament network ‘ABOLITION 2000’, comprising more than 2,000 peace groups worldwide, "creates a dangerous distinction between 'good' proliferators and 'bad' proliferators and sends out misleading signals to the international community..."
"The exemption" it adds, "will not bring India further into conformity with the non-proliferation behaviour expected of the member-states of the NPT."
Barring the exceptional situation in which India might conduct another nuclear test, the NSG imposes no significant conditions on nuclear trade with India. Even this condition is not stated up-front, and is mentioned in reference to a general statement by India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Sep. 5, in which he reiterated India's unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and its non-proliferation commitments.
But a voluntary moratorium can be lifted easily and unilaterally. In any case, it falls short of a legally binding commitment not to test.
India had insisted on a "clean and unconditional" waiver from the NSG, and has very nearly secured it, thanks to the indulgence of the U.S., which proposed the deal in the first place and lobbied hard and furiously for it.
With the waiver under its belt, India can proceed to import uranium fuel, of which it is running short, and a range of other nuclear materials, equipment and technologies for its civilian nuclear programme. But it can divert domestic uranium exclusively for weapons purposes.
"Under the U.S.-India nuclear deal, India signed an agreement to separate its military nuclear facilities from civilian installations and subject some of the latter to safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency," says Achin Vanaik, head of the department of political science at Delhi University, and a national coordination committee member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (India).
According to Vanaik, India will only put 14 of its 22 operating or planned civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards, which are meant to ensure that no nuclear material from them is diverted to military purposes. ''But it can use the remaining eight reactors to produce as much plutonium as it likes for its weapons programme."
According to a report prepared by independent scientists and experts for the International Panel on Fissile Materials two years ago, these eight reactors alone can yield fuel for as many as 40 Nagasaki-type bombs every year.
In addition, India can produce more bomb fuel from its dedicated military nuclear facilities and fast-breeder reactors, which it can maintain and expand.
India accepts no limits or restrictions on the size of its nuclear arsenal and has an ambitious nuclear doctrine under which it continues to stockpile fissile material for weapons use.
The NSG has all but put its imprimatur on India's nuclear activities which would allow it to expand its arsenal of mass-destruction weapons and thus set a negative example for the rest of the world, in particular, wannabe atomic states.
In the process, says Daryl F. Kimball of the Arms Control Association (U.S.), the NSG has undermined "efforts to contain Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programmes, and it will make it nearly impossible to win support for much-needed measures to strengthen the NPT" at its next review conference due in 2010.
The waiver may weaken and harm the NPT itself by aiding the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a country not recognised by it as a nuclear weapons-state, which it explicitly prohibits. Effectively, it expands the Nuclear Club to include a member which has refused to sign the treaty.
Within the NSG, there was a great deal of resistance to the waiver. An earlier meeting of the group, on Aug. 21-22, failed to produce a consensus -- necessary for any decision to go through.
The resistance was led by six "like-minded" countries --Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland -- which argued that India must accept three conditions in order to resume nuclear trade.
These included a periodic review of compliance with India's non-proliferation pledges, exclusion from trade of sensitive technologies such as uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing, and cessation of nuclear commerce in case India tests.
In the event, India only accepted the first condition and doggedly refused to go beyond reiterating its unilateral moratorium on testing.
However, on the second day of the NSG meeting, Foreign Minister Mukherjee made a general statement saying that India is opposed to nuclear proliferation, does not subscribe to an arms race, and will behave responsibly as a nuclear weapons-state.
"The statement was inane and dishonest because India initiated and has sustained a nuclear arms race in South Asia," says M.V. Ramana from the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development, Banagalore. "It is really a sad commentary on the state of debate at the NSG if such statements actually create what was described by the U.S. delegate as a 'positive momentum'..."
Eventually, the "positive result" in the form of the waiver was achieved after Mukherjee's statement effectively split the "like-minded" group and led to the desertion of the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland on the evening of Sep. 5.
Behind the change was crude pressure, blackmail and induced fear of "isolation" on account of antagonising the "emerging power" that is India. The topmost leaders of the U.S., India and their allies worked the telephone lines to mount this pressure.
Kimball said that ‘’it appears as if George Bush and his team engaged in some nasty threats, misinformation about positions, and intimidation, to wear down the core six members … and their allies. You have to assume the conversations among foreign ministers, presidents, and prime ministers didn't focus on the policy and non-proliferation issues, but raw politics".
"Another factor,’’ Kimball added, ‘’was the role of Germany, ostensibly the NSG chair. At this meeting, the Germans apparently sat on their thumbs and let the Americans run the show and keep asking for more consultations despite the remaining differences. A more competent and less biased chair would have provided more balance and would have adjourned the meeting Friday night when it was clear there was still disagreement on some fundamental issues..."
China briefly emerged as a supporter of the Group of Six, when it asked that the waiver decision not be rushed. But, say Indian media reports, a critically timed telephone call from Bush to Chinese president Hu Jintao did the trick and China quickly fell in line.
"This was a triumph of crass power politics," says Vanaik. "It is sad and profoundly disturbing that nobody resisted U.S. or Indian pressure and stood up for elementary principles in a group where even a single member could have blocked the waiver. India's 'victory' is founded on crude muscle power and cynicism, and negates rational, democratic decision-making based on a commitment to making the world a safer place."
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 12:39 PM
I would support the deal if the panel has found that this will strength the NPT, if not then the world must do all it can to sanction nuclear material to India to saved the NPT.
========================================
House panel chief not ready to waive rules for India deal
WASHINGTON: As the Bush administration prepared to present the India-US civil nuclear deal to the US Congress for final approval, a key lawmaker reiterated his opposition to a change of rules to ensure its quick passage.
"I support cooperation on civilian nuclear energy with India," said Howard L Berman, Democratic, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Sunday, noting he had voted for the Hyde Act, the US enabling law for the India deal.
But "I oppose policies that would lead to a nuclear arms race or undermine proliferation standards," he said amid expectations that the administration would present the deal to the Congress this week following the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) decision to give India a waiver for nuclear trade.
"Before we vote, Congress needs to study the NSG decision, along with any agreements that were made behind the scenes to bring it about," he said.
"If the Administration wants to seek special procedures to speed congressional consideration, it will have to show how the NSG decision is consistent with the Hyde Act, as Secretary Rice promised, including which technologies can be sent to India and what impact a nuclear test by India would have."
In an appearance before the House panel Feb 13, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had assured him that any NSG decision "will have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act," he said.
"The burden of proof is on the Bush administration so that Congress can be assured that what we're being asked to approve conforms with US law," Berman said.
The Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act require that after the administration submits the India deal to Congress, 30 days of continuous congressional session must elapse before a resolution of approval can be introduced, he noted. "Only by first passing new legislation could Congress set aside the 30-day requirement," Berman said.
The Berman damper came as Rice outlined plans to speak to US Congress leaders Monday or Tuesday to push for the passage of the deal before the lawmakers adjourned Sep 26 to campaign in the Nov 4 US election.
Noting that "the time is very short", Rice said she had already talked several weeks before the NSG Vienna meeting "to relevant committee chairs about trying to get it done."
"And I will have those conversations again, most likely on Monday or Tuesday, as well as trying to see whether the leadership believes that this can go forward," she told US press travelling with her in Algiers Saturday.
Unlike Berman, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, who is now Obama's running mate, has vowed to push the nuclear deal in the Congress "like the devil" if New Delhi gets its end done.
Biden, who as then ranking member of the Republican controlled panel, played a key role in getting the Hyde Act passed in a lame duck session in December 2006, is again expected to get into the act to see the deal through in the narrow time window available despite his own preoccupations as a vice presidential candidate.
Both the presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, too are supportive of the deal. On Sunday they welcomed the nuclear cartel's waiver for India and asked the Bush administration to present the India-US civil nuclear deal to the Congress quickly.
Meanwhile, Ashok Mago, chairman of the USIndia Forum, appealed to Berman to soften his stand noting "undue delay will not be helpful for US businesses".
"This agreement has unconditional support in its present form from leadership of your party and your counterpart in the senate, Senator Joe Biden," he said.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 3:16 PM
Dr. B. K. Subba Rao a former Indian Navy Captain, who holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Technology from the I.I.T., has
charged the Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai with passing off a thermonuclear device with the yield in
mere kilotonnes as a success while it was in fact a failure.
He says in a statement:
India alone, and not the rest of the world, will be the Books loser, if Indians are not able to know the true picture
about the nuclear explosions carried out at Pokhran on May 11 and May 13, 1998.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 3:16 PM
Dr. B. K. Subba Rao a former Indian Navy Captain, who holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Technology from the I.I.T., has
charged the Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai with passing off a thermonuclear device with the yield in
mere kilotonnes as a success while it was in fact a failure.
He says in a statement:
India alone, and not the rest of the world, will be the Books loser, if Indians are not able to know the true picture
about the nuclear explosions carried out at Pokhran on May 11 and May 13, 1998.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 3:23 PM
That means India intents to carry out another nuclear test in the future, how can the MSG agree with the wavier if this is the case. The waiver must be reexamine to see if it will strength NPT or break it.
flying_tiger is the only user name I used for WAFF, I'm not the other flying_tiger from other forum
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 4:24 PM
I can't understand why India needs this deal to generate power didn't Indian scientist develop the Thorium based reactors which is considered as more efficient and clean fuel than Uranium. Thanks to this nuclear deal research has stop and India has only concentrated on buying nuclear equipment from overseas companies.
Of course you cannot used Thorium as nuclear weapons, which rise doubt on India's intentions for this deal.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2005
India Unveils Thorium Reactor
Indian scientists today unveiled a revolutionary design for a thorium breeder reactor (ATBR) that can produce 600 megawatts of electricity for two years with no refueling and practically no control maneuvers:
ATBR is claimed to be far more economical and safer than any power reactor in the world.
Most significantly for India, ATBR does not require natural or enriched uranium which the country is finding difficult to import. It uses thorium -- which India has in plenty -- and only requires plutonium as "seed" to ignite the reactor core initially.
... The uniqueness of the ATBR design is that there is almost a perfect "balance" between fissile depletion and production that allows in-bred U-233 to take part in energy generation thereby extending the core life to two years.
This does not happen in the present-day power reactors because the fissile depletion takes place much faster than production of new fissile ones.
Thorium: Energy Source of the Future and Replacement for Uranium
***Investment Thesis For A Proliferation-Proof Nuclear Fuel---Thorium
Utilizing Thorium based nuclear fuels has many important societal benefits, such as safety benefits, environmental benefits, and non-proliferation benefits. Thorium is more abundant, more efficient and safer to use as a reactor fuel than uranium. Also important, Thorium reactors leave behind very little plutonium, meaning less material available for making nuclear weapons.
Thorium (Th) is considered the key to long term sustainability of Nuclear Energy.
Heightened concern about nuclear proliferation has once again attracted the attention of scientists and policymakers to the possibilities of thorium.
Thorium/weapons-grade plutonium disposing fuel offers the fastest, cheapest, and most effective means to dispose of plutonium stockpiles
***Support
IAEA Endorses Thorium Fuel
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a United Nations organization, submitted an official report on Thorium utilization in May of 2005. On July 6, 2005 we issued a press release commenting on this report. The IAEA is publicly promoting the significant benefits of Thorium utilization as a source of nuclear energy. In addition, on page # 91 of this report, the IAEA recommended that companies augment the exploration and mining of Thorium to insure the availability of sufficient supplies of reactor grade Thorium.
The report cites the following advantages of thorium fuels over conventional uranium fuel:
1)Thorium is easily exploitable and is 3 to 4 times more abundant than uranium in nature
2)Thorium fuel cycle is an attractive way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste
3)The transition to thorium could be done through the incineration of weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium
4)Th–based fuels and fuel cycles have intrinsic proliferation-resistance
5)For incineration of WPuor civilian Pu in ‘once-through’ cycle, (Th, Pu)O2 fuel is more attractive, as compared to (U, Pu)O2
6)The high degree of chemical stability and the low solubility of thoria make irradiated thoria based fuels attractive as waste forms for direct geological disposal
Issue #1: Weapons-grade Plutonium
1) Nuclear weapons nations have accumulated an estimated 250 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, most of it in the United States and Russia
2) In 2000, the United States and Russia each agreed to dispose of 34 tons of this excess weapons-grade plutonium
3) Thorium/weapons-grade plutonium disposing fuel offers the fastest, cheapest, and most effective means to dispose of this plutonium
4) These advantages were independently reviewed and verified by Westinghouse Electric Company
Issue #2: Reactor-grade Plutonium
1) Over the decades, civilian nuclear power plants have produced nearly 1,700 tons of reactor-grade plutonium, of which about 274 tons have been separated and the rest is stored at reactor sites embedded in spent fuel
2) Crude nuclear weapons could be made from reactor-grade plutonium
3)Thorium/reactor-grade plutonium disposing fuel is expected to offer a more economically viable way to dispose of separated reactor-grade plutonium than the MOX process currently used in a number of nuclear power plants in Europe and Japan
Issue #3: Thorium/Uranium Fuel for Commercial Nuclear Power Industry
1) Presently, there are 444 commercial nuclear power plants in operation worldwide
2)Approximately 225 are suitable candidates for Thorium Power’s thorium/uranium fuel
3) Thorium/uranium fuel is expected to offer high proliferation resistance, significantly reduced volume, weight and radio-toxicity of spent fuel, lower total fuel cycle costs
4) Commercial opportunities exist for use of proliferation resistant thorium/uranium fuel in small reactors
The advantages of the fuel are even more compelling in view of the need to keep dangerous nuclear material from
terrorists:
1) Uranium byproducts of a thorium reactor are far less useful to rogue regimes, terrorists or black marketers than
are plutonium byproducts from a uranium breeder reactor. 2) Thorium and its primers produce 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste than conventional fuels. 3) Thorium stops reacting when its primers are withdrawn,
making an accident all but impossible.4) Three times more plutonium can be consumed in a thorium fuel assembly than in mixed-oxide fuels, disposing of far more weapons-grade plutonium. 5) Existing reactors need little adaptation to burn thorium fuel assemblies. 6) Thorium conducts heat better than uranium, allowing an easier release from thorium fuel rods. 7) Thorium melts at 500.25oC. higher than uranium. That means it can tolerate more extreme conditions in a reactor and so is less dangerous during emergencies. 8) Thorium dioxide, which is the form the element takes in the reactor, is more stable than uranium dioxide, and is much less likely to interact chemically with other materials it encounters
***Investment Vehicle
Novastar Resources Ltd. (NVAS)
Novastar Resources in Formal Negotiations to Merge with Thorium Power, Inc.
In a reverse merger Thorium Power will be merged into NVAS and change its name to Thorium Power with a new ticker symbol.
"We expect the merger to allow for the production of nuclear power with enhanced proliferation resistance and the ability to produce electricity through the elimination of existing plutonium stockpiles. We also expect the merger to enhance the value of our existing mining properties."
Thorium Power strives to be the world's leading developer of proliferation resistant nuclear fuel technologies. Thorium Power designs nuclear fuels, obtains patent protection on these fuels, and coordinates fuel development with large entities and governments. In all its activities Thorium Power is guided by the principles non-proliferation. The Company’s goal is driving public awareness and lobbying government officials as to the societal benefits of Thorium utilization.
About Thorium Power, Inc.
Thorium Power, Inc. was founded in 1992 to develop technology invented by Dr. Alvin Radkowsky, the first chief scientist of the U.S. Naval Reactors program under Admiral H.G. Rickover from 1950-1972 and head of the design team of the first commercial nuclear power plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. The Company was formed to develop and deploy nuclear fuel designs developed by Dr. Radkowsky to stop the production of weapons suitable plutonium and eliminate existing plutonium stockpiles. Thorium Power, Inc. has been collaborating with nuclear scientists and engineers at Russia's prestigious Kurchatov Institute since 1994. Thorium Power, Inc., a privately-held Washington, DC area-based company develops and deploys Thorium based nuclear fuel designs developed to stop the production of weapons-suitable plutonium and eliminate existing plutonium stockpiles.
Website: www.thoriumpower.com
About Novastar Resources
Novastar Resources Ltd. is a publicly traded company within the commercial mining sector and is a significant commercial mining source of Thorium, a naturally occurring metal that can be used to provide nuclear energy, with non-proliferation, waste, and economic advantages, in comparison to standard Uranium fuels.
The acquisition of Thorium Power would strengthen the Novastar Resources business model by combining the intellectual property assets of Thorium Power with the mineral properties of Novastar Resources and the benefits of being a publicly-traded company. In addition, upon closing of the proposed merger, Seth Grae will be named the CEO of the combined company.
Plutonium and highly enriched uranium can be used to end the world as we know it. Thorium Power is dedicated to developing the most effective nuclear fuel technologies in the world for stopping the production of weapons-suitable materials in nuclear power plants, and for burning the existing stockpiles of these materials. Thorium Power will cooperate with political and diplomatic efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons-suitable materials and to eliminate their stockpiles.
Contact:
Novastar Resources Ltd.
David J. DiRicco
Investor Relations
(877) 995-0992
Nuclear power for civil use is well established in India. Its civil nuclear strategy has been directed towards complete independence in the nuclear fuel cycle, necessary because of its outspoken rejection of the NPT. This self-sufficiency extends from uranium exploration and mining through fuel fabrication, heavy water production, reactor design and construction, to reprocessing and waste management. It has a small fast breeder reactor and is planning a much larger one. It is also developing technology to utilise its abundant resources of thorium as a nuclear fuel.
India has 14 small nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, two larger ones under construction, and ten more planned. The 14 operating ones (2548 MWe total) comprise:
two 150 MWe BWRs from USA, which started up in 1969, now use locally-enriched uranium and are under safeguards,
two small Canadian PHWRs (1972 & 1980), also under safeguards, and
ten local PHWRs based on Canadian designs, two of 150 and eight 200 MWe.
two new 540 MWe and two 700 MWe plants are tarapore (known as TAPP :Tarapore Atomic Power Project)
The two under construction and two of the planned ones are 450 MWe versions of these 200 MWe domestic products. Construction has been seriously delayed by financial and technical problems. In 2001 a final agreement was signed with Russia for the country's first large nuclear power plant, comprising two VVER-1000 reactors, under a Russian-financed US$3 billion contract. The first unit is due to be commissioned in 2007. A further two Russian units are under consideration for the site.
Nuclear power supplied 3.1% of India's electricity in 2000 and this is expected to reach 10% by 2005. Its industry is largely without IAEA safeguards, though a few plants (see above) are under facility-specific safeguards. As a result India's nuclear power programme proceeds largely without fuel or technological assistance from other countries.
Its weapons material appears to come from a Canadian-designed 40MW "research" reactor which started up in 1960, well before the NPT, and a 100MW indigenous unit in operation since 1985. Both use local uranium, as India does not import any nuclear fuel. It is estimated that India may have built up enough weapons-grade plutonium for a hundred nuclear warheads.
It is widely believed that the nuclear programs of India and Pakistan used CANDU reactors to produce fissionable materials for their weapons; however, this is not accurate. Both Canada (by supplying the 40 MW research reactor) and the United States (by supplying 21 tons of heavy water) supplied India with the technology necessary to create a nuclear weapons program, dubbed CIRUS (Canada-India Reactor, United States). Canada sold India the reactor on the condition that the reactor and any by-products would be "employed for peaceful purposes only.". Similarly, the U.S. sold New Delhi heavy water for use in the reactor "only... in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes". India, in violation of these agreements, used the Canadian-supplied reactor and American-supplied heavy water to produce plutonium for their first nuclear explosion, Smiling Buddha.[16] The Indian government controversially justified this, however, by claiming that Smiling Buddha was a "peaceful nuclear explosion."
The country has at least three other research reactors including the tiny one which is exploring the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel, by breeding fissile U-233. In addition, an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle is under development.
India exploded a nuclear device in 1974, the so-called Smiling Buddha test, which it has consistently claimed was for peaceful purposes. Others saw it as a response to China's nuclear weapons capability. It was then universally perceived, notwithstanding official denials, to possess, or to be able to quickly assemble, nuclear weapons. In 1997 it deployed its own medium-range missile and is now developing a long-range missile capable of reaching targets in China's industrial heartland.
In 1995 the USA quietly intervened to head off a proposed nuclear test. However, in 1998 there were five more tests in Operation Shakti. These were unambiguously military, including one claimed to be of a sophisticated thermonuclear device, and their declared purpose was "to help in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields and different delivery systems".
Indian security policies are driven by:
its determination to be recognized as a dominant power in the region
its increasing concern with China's expanding nuclear weapons and missile delivery programmes
its concern with Pakistan's capability to deliver nuclear weapons deep into India
It perceives nuclear weapons as a cost-effective political counter to China's nuclear and conventional weaponry, and the effects of its nuclear weapons policy in provoking Pakistan is, by some accounts, considered incidental. India has had an unhappy relationship with China. After an uneasy ceasefire ended the 1962 war, relations between the two nations were frozen until 1998. Since then a degree of high-level contact has been established and a few elementary confidence-building measures put in place. China still occupies some territory which it captured during the aforementioned war, claimed by India, and India still occupies some territory claimed by China. Its nuclear weapon and missile support for Pakistan is a major bone of contention.
Recently, American President George W. Bush met with India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss India's involvement with nuclear weapons. The two countries agreed that the United States would give nuclear power assistance to India. India would also be allowed to produce more nuclear weapons.[
flying_tiger is the only user name I used for WAFF, I'm not the other flying_tiger from other forum
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 7:32 PM
I posted this reply in a another thread about the same subject in the Asia pacific forum, I guess its also applicable to this thread. So I've decided to post it here as well.
Wow it seems the Indians here are jumping up and down celebrating lol
Now lets not beat around the bush, the reason why Indians want this nuke deal is because they want more nuclear weapons.
Perhaps they should realise that the Nuke deal with the US will effectively curtail any future nuclear weapons tests by India!! (if India were to conduct a nuclear test the Western countries will kick up such a fuss even the USA will be forced to act) Why is that significant I hear you ask?? Well how many nuclear tests has India done so far?? Six right?? Which is a freaking joke!
Also considering that many of those past Indian nuclear tests probably failed!! as shown by this thread:
So it goes without saying that its imperative the Indians need to conduct more tests to validate their nukes!
So let me put it in simple words for you Indians, THERES NO WAY YOU CAN VERIFY THE RELIABILITY OF YOUR NUKES WITH ONLY 6 TESTS!!
If theres a nuclear exchange scenairo between Pakistan and India for example, you want to be absolutely sure and confident that your nukes won't land with a "fizzzzzzzzzzzzz" and peters out lol
Sure this nuke deal with the US will surreptitiously give India more uranium for making more nuclear weapons, but what good will that do if those nuclear weapons aren't fully reliable??
And using computer simulations won't fully validate your nukes either.
So is it really a "win win" situation for India?? lol
Lastly the Chinese are about to acquire some western nuclear reactors (Most likely french) so its no big deal for us, plus we have a sizable reserve of uranium unlike India.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 7:48 PM
^
out of thoese 6 test only few exploded and the rest failed and the few that exploded like fire crackers.. go to A/P and read that IN ex officer confess that indian nuke test were total failure!!!
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 7:57 PM
The only article calling India's nuke tests a failure is from 1998 and that too an opinion of one person, how come i do not see anything else all over the net regarding that?
So stop masturbating especially Pakis whose entire Nuke program is courtesy your Chinese friends
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 8:20 PM
That person BK Subbarao who made claims about the supposed failure of one of the tests in 1998 was prosecuted for leaking atomic energy secrets. He has a personal axe to grind against the India govt, and is probably mentally unstable as well. He is basically an incredible lunatic.
Recently his son who was a student in US was found guilty of threatening the life of US president and his family and sentenced to prison.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 8:54 PM
this is what happens in so called free society rundia... who ever speaks the truth aganist rundian government that poor person gets mentally tortured..
@gay2
the only one mentally masturbating are hindus... heck even if DRDO makes devali fire crackers you guys will masturbate to it.. as for indian 98 crakers.. lol.... why would the indian government wanna expose the truth about their failures??
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 8 2008, 9:03 PM
At the moron troll Pukistani,
You spend your whole day trying to find any news thats anti indian, Even articles from 1998 for fvks sake.
Do you not have a life, is that all in your mind to constantly find news related to India?
You are so fvking obsessed that you made 2 additional troll logins "Puke4eva" and "Lulli4life" to solely flame which were caught and deleted.
I guess people have different ways to get an orgasm, this is your way of getting it
Regarding hiding anything,nothing gets away from the Indian media especially failures so show me another article regarding that supposed nuke failure?
This message has been edited by B2_Spirit on Sep 8, 2008 9:07 PM
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 2:40 AM
The only article calling India's nuke tests a failure is from 1998 and that too an opinion of one person, how come i do not see anything else all over the net regarding that?
So stop masturbating especially Pakis whose entire Nuke program is courtesy your Chinese friends
B2
Read these
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03EEDC1F31F933A25753C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all excerpt Though the treaty's opponents point to the Indian claim as a test-ban embarrassment, the emerging consensus among nuclear experts is that what failed that day was not global monitoring but the pair of explosive devices. ''The Indian claims were exaggerated,'' said George Perkovich, author of ''India's Nuclear Bomb'' (University of California), to be published this week. The problems were so great, he added, that India left another nuclear device in the ground undetonated.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/nuke-test.htm (read bottom of the article) excerpt Based on seismic data, US government sources and independent experts estimated the yield of the so-called thermonuclear test in the range of 15-25 kilotons (versus the 43-60 kiloton yield claimed by India). Observers initially suggested that the test could have been a boosted fission device, rather than a true multi-stage thermonuclear device. By late 1998 analysts at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had concluded that the second stage of a two-stage Indian hydrogen bomb device failed to ignite as planned.
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/nucwatch/nucwatch112698.html excerpt One of India's May nuclear blasts, which was described by the New Delhi government as a successful thermonuclear weapons test, was in fact a failure, senior U.S. nuclear intelligence analysts have concluded after months of study.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/India/Nuclear/index.html excerpt There is considerable controversy over the yield and reliability of India's nuclear devices. When India tested its first fission device in May 1974, Indian scientists claimed the device had a yield of about 12kt. However, that figure has been disputed by independent analysts who estimate that the yield was far lower, probably between 2-6kt. Later, a senior Indian scientist who was part of the design and testing effort privately admitted that the yield was more likely in the range of 8kt.
Similar controversy dogs India's May 1998 tests. After the first of round of tests on May 11, India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) announced that it had tested three nuclear devices: a fission device with a yield of 12kt; a thermonuclear device with a yield of 43kt; and a sub-kiloton device with a yield of 0.2kt; The figures were later revised to 45kt for the thermonuclear device and 15kt for the fission device. However, these figures have been disputed by independent analysts, who--citing evidence from seismic data--claim that the cumulative yield of the Indian tests was more likely between 20-30kt, the implications being the thermonuclear test was likely to have been a failure.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/523/the-bomb-dmitry-the-hydrogen-bomb excerpt There are substantial reasons for skepticism. India claimed that it detonated three devices on 11 May 1998 at Pokhran (right) a 43-kiloton thermonuclear explosion, a 12-kiloton fission explosion and a 0.2-kiloton fission explosion. (India then claims to have conducted low yield tests on 13 May 1998.)
Seismic analyses (particularly Wallace et al) conclude the cumulative yield for the 11 May tests was only 12-kilotons. A yield that low is probably “too small to have been a full test of a thermonuclear weapon” suggesting the test fizzled.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 3:10 AM
Btw the failed Paki nukes are actually Chinese designs as ive proven it in the A/P forum so please before you point fingers at Indians, look at your own Backyard my friend .
there is a saying, one finger points forward and 3 fingers point backwards, i hope you get the drift?
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 4:30 AM
China had help pakistan in the 80s, but all of these help were done before China sign the NPT. From the 80s and early 90s pakistan did nothing, until 1999.
flying_tiger is the only user name I used for WAFF, I'm not the other flying_tiger from other forum
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 4:39 AM
"Oh please stop i with the shameful excuses, its getting to disgusting man"
How rude, I already state that the news articles has China giving Pakistan nuclear weapons secrets in the 80s before China has sign the NPT. Where is your source that China has given Pakistan more nuclear weapons secrets after NPT has been sign.
flying_tiger is the only user name I used for WAFF, I'm not the other flying_tiger from other forum
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 4:43 AM
Quote:How rude, I already state that the news articles has China giving Pakistan nuclear weapons secrets in the 80s before China has sign the NPT. Where is your source that China has given Pakistan more nuclear weapons secrets after NPT has been sign.
No man im not trying to be rude but certain Chinese and their holier than thou attitudes piss me off, excuse me for this outburst.
Ive posted an article which does state an active support of the Chinese to Pakistan till the actual tests and that mans till the late 1990's
It's hard to believe china giving direct assistance to pakistan after signing npt. There were speculation that china provided help up until 1990s (or even given pakistan a complete bomb), but this was due to tech transfer prior to signing npt and result of that knowledge transfer was only known/manifested in late 1980s. No proof china violated npt.
Nuclear weapons is not something that gets transferred lightly. Even after nearly a million chinese casualties fighting in korea because soviets screwed up, they still gave Mao the middle finger when he asked for help developing nukes, even at the expense of Soviet/China split and series of border wars with Soviets.
------------------------------------
#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.
China tested nukes for Pakistan, gave design
5 Sep 2008
WASHINGTON: While an assortment of non-proliferation hardliners and hi-tech suppliers treat India with immense suspicion in the matter of nuclear trade predicated on tests, it turns out that the United States and the west were fully aware of Chinese nuclear weapons proliferation to Pakistan, including conducting a proxy test for it, as far back as 1990.
In some of the most startling revelations to emerge on the subject, a high-ranking former US official who was also a nuclear weapons designer has disclosed that ''in 1982 China's premier Deng Xiaoping began the transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan.''
The whistleblower isn't a think-tank academic or an unnamed official speaking on background. Thomas Reed, described as a former U.S ''nuclear weaponeer'' and a Secretary of the Air Force (1976-77) writes in the latest issue of Physics Today that China’s transfers to Pakistan included blueprints for the ultrasimple CHIC-4 design using highly enriched uranium, first tested by China in 1966. A Pakistani derivative of CHIC-4 apparently was tested in China on 26 May 1990, he adds.
Reed makes an even more stunning disclosure, saying Deng not only authorized proliferation to Pakistan, but also, "in time, to other third world countries.'' The countries are not named. He also says that during the 1990s, China conducted underground hydronuclear experiments—though not full-scale device tests—for France at Lop Nur.
Reed’s disclosures are based on his knowledge of and insights into the visits to China by Dan Stillman, a top US nuclear expert who went there several times in the late 1980s at Beijing invitation, in part because the Chinese wanted to both show-off and convey to the US the progress they had made in nuclear weaponisation ..............
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 8:59 AM
Why are Indians so delusional, this was done before the NPT has taken effect. Someone said this already and yet Indians love to repeats this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 10:52 AM
Indians read these articles
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340760/ excerpt Khan is a metallurgist by training, but it had taken a great deal more than a doctorate in metallurgy to provide Pakistan with the atomic bomb. It had taken a sound knowledge of atomic physics, engineering, and management. It had taken a long stint in the Netherlands where he had filched the secret formula for processing uranium until it was bomb-grade from right under the noses of his trusting Dutch hosts. It had taken a degree of patriotism that only one adjective could adequately describe: fanatical. It had taken monumental self-absorption and egotism. And it had taken money--real money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403625.html excerpt Yet, it was his work to create an international underground network of nuclear technology sales that gained him the most notoriety in recent years. Dutch officials have said that the CIA was alerted as early as 1975 that Khan was stealing plans to build centrifuges to enrich uranium -- a key component for nuclear weapons -- from his Dutch employer.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/04/pakistan.nuclear.timeline.reut/ excerpt 1983: Dutch court sentences A.Q. Khan to four years' jail after he is convicted in absentia of nuclear espionage. Decision is later overturned on a technicality. Khan denies allegations that he stole plans for uranium enrichment centrifuges from URENCO, a British-Dutch-German consortium he worked for in Holland in the 1970s
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920461,00.html excrept He was a brilliant and charming man, a linguist who was liked by his colleagues and suburban Amsterdam neighbors. To be sure, Abdul Qadar Khan did seem a bit inquisitive to his fellow scientists at The Netherlands' top-secret gas centrifuge factory at Almelo, where enriched uranium is produced for nuclear plants around the world. On the other hand, asking questions was normal behavior for a bright young metallurgist who wanted to get ahead. After 17 days at the plant, however, Khan was politely but firmly told to leave Almelo, and went back to work in his Amsterdam laboratory. Shortly afterward, he told friends that he had been asked to return to his native Pakistan and serve in the Economic Affairs Ministry. Sadly, he bade them goodbye, his sojourn in Holland completed.
And, as it now seems, his mission accomplished. When Khan returned to his homeland, only two commercial gas centrifuge plants existed—one in Capenhurst, Britain, and the other in Almelo. The blueprints for both factories are highly classified, since the uranium produced by a gas centrifuge can be used to make nuclear weapons. Today, Khan is apparently director of Pakistan's one and only gas centrifuge plant, which is now under construction near the country's capital, Islamabad. The onetime Almelo adviser managed to carry home critical information about the gas centrifuge process needed to build such a factory, thereby enabling Pakistan to produce its own enriched uranium and, eventually, its own nuclear bomb. Pakistan will be a full-fledged member of the world's nuclear club within two to five years.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK29Df02.html excerpt To cut right to the chase, Khan, who was able to work at the lab without serious scrutiny from the Dutch security police, found that he had easy access to the latest uranium-enrichment technology. Within three years, he had left the lab - in possession of plans for Europe's most advanced centrifuge and a shopping list of relevant equipment manufacturers, experts for hire, and sources for the necessary raw materials to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb, all scattered across the globe.
Armed with his blueprints, Dr Khan then set up the AQ Khan Research Laboratories near the Pakistani capital Islamabad and began to build the bomb, often getting supplies and equipment from European companies. In those days, controls were lax and in any event much of the equipment was dual use so its ultimate purpose could be hidden. Dr Khan was remarkably successful.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 1:30 PM
Germany Grudgingly Accepts Landmark Nuclear Deal with India
Germany has grudgingly accepted a landmark civilian nuclear trade deal with India which gives the Asian giant the green light to buy nuclear fuel and technology on the global market.
German Foreign Ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner said this week Germany -- as chair of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the export and sale of nuclear technology -- had tried to balance conflicting interests during tense negotiations that led to the landmark agreement.
"There were several countries that put critical questions to India, but also the United States, about how this arrangement is compatible with the common goal of nuclear non-proliferation," Ploetner told a news conference on Monday, Sept 8.
"It is not an ideal solution. The negotiations were very difficult and we cannot say that we could not have imagined something better."
The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a group of 45 states that control the international sale of nuclear technology. The deal with India is a key step in sealing the India-US atomic technology accord signed by US President George W. Bush and Indian Premier Manmohan Singh in 2005.
The US-India Business Council, one of the champions of the pact between New Delhi and Washington, said the NSG's decision could unlock nuclear energy investment in India worth more than $100 billion (70 billion euros).
The controversial agreement, signed on Saturday, Sept. 6, means Germany and other states can start jostling for a strong position in the race to sell nuclear know-how and technology to India.
A controversial decision
The US had been hoping for a quick decision on the embargo, so that the current US Congress could ratify the accord before elections in November. US lawmakers are pushing for a vote by the end of September.
The decision to lift the embargo was controversial, in part because India -- which was embargoed in the first place after it developed and tested nuclear weapons test in 1974 -- has so far refused to sign the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
US President George W. Bush, left, walks with Indian PM Manmohan SinghBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Bush and Singh signed a nukes deal in 2005
The US exerted the most pressure on the NSG to lift the embargo. It argues that cooperation in the civilian nuclear sector could bring India closer to signing on to the international nuclear non proliferation treaty, and that an increase in atomic energy sources will help in the fight against global warming.
But critics -- such as Austria, Ireland and New Zealand, supported by China -- warned that India is being rewarded for its long-time insistence on a right to nuclear technology; they fear India could use atomic technology for military ends. Moreover, the NSG stance undermines its negotiating power when it comes to dealing with states such as Iran and Pakistan, opponents argue.
Germany shows grudging acceptance
The last NSG member state to finally agree to lift the India embargo was Austria. It signed only after India formally decreed it would adhere to a moratorium on further atomic-bomb tests.
Germany, which currently chairs the NSG, expressed grudging acceptance of the landmark atomic energy deal. It, too, denied the accord undermines the West's efforts to convince Iran to stop sensitive nuclear work.
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinedjad, in front of a nuclear symbol on a flagBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Iran'S Ahmadinejad wants to expand his program
Asked whether the pact contradicted the West's united opposition to Iran's controversial nuclear program, Ploetner told AFP news service that the Nuclear Suppliers Group had underscored the goal of non-proliferation with the agreement.
Germany: IAEA approval was key
"Does this agreement send an approving message to Iran? No, it absolutely does not," Ploetner said, calling India a "special case."
Ploetner added that the approval of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, had been decisive in winning approval.
Internatial Atomic Energy Association logoBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Getting the IAEA to sign on was a key part of the deal
Germany is among six countries working to convince Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment, which the West fears is a pretense for building an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only.
Jostling for contracts has begun
Meanwhile, the US forecasts that India's growing energy needs mean it will have to build at least eight new atomic energy plants by 2012. Britain, France and Russia have already joined the US in jostling for lucrative contracts.
And during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of a German-supported technical university earlier this week in Chennai, India, German Technology Minister Annette Schavan was warmly greeted by her Indian counterpart Kipal Sibal.
"We have to see the next 50 years of cooperation in the light of the events of this past weekend," Sibal said at the celebration. In cooperation with Germany, India could find out "which components and what know-how is important for us," he added
Nuclear energy plant in franceBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: France has a strong footing in atomic energy
While the NSG decision means India is now technically free to trade on the world market, Indian leaders said late Monday, Sept. 8, they would seek to clinch international nuclear deals only after the India-US atomic agreement is cleared by the US Congress.
On Tuesday, Sept. 9, the White House said it was "hopeful" Congress would pass the landmark cooperation deal before President Bush's term ends in January.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 1:31 PM
A Bad Deal
President Bush has failed to achieve so many of his foreign policy goals, but last weekend he proved that he can still get what he really wants. The administration bullied and wheedled international approval of the president’s ill-conceived nuclear deal with India.
The decision by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (which sets rules for nuclear trade) means that for the first time in more than 30 years — since New Delhi used its civilian nuclear program to produce a bomb — the world can sell nuclear fuel and technology to India.
Mr. Bush and his aides argued that India is an important democracy and dismissed warnings that breaking the rules would make it even harder to pressure Iran and others to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
The White House will now try to wheedle and bully Congress to quickly sign off on the deal. Congress should resist that pressure.
The nuclear agreement was a bad idea from the start. Mr. Bush and his team were so eager for a foreign policy success that they gave away the store. They extracted no promise from India to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The administration — and India’s high-priced lobbyists — managed to persuade Congress in 2006 to give its preliminary approval. But Congress insisted on a few important conditions, including a halt to all nuclear trade if India tests another weapon.
That didn’t stop the White House from insisting on more generous terms from the suppliers’ group. When New Zealand and a group of other sensible countries tried to impose similar restrictions, the administration pulled out all of the diplomatic stops. (Officials proudly reported that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made at least two dozen calls to governments around the world to press for the India waiver.)
The suppliers’ group gave its approval after India said it would abide by a voluntary moratorium on testing — but it does not require any member to cut off trade if India breaks that pledge.
That means that if India tests a nuclear weapon, it could still bypass American suppliers and keep buying fuel and technology from other less exacting sellers. Let us be clear about this. It is the administration that disadvantaged American companies when it argued for more lenient rules from the suppliers group than those written into American law.
And let us also be clear that Congress’s restrictions were a sensible effort to limit the damage from this damaging deal and maintain a few shreds of American credibility when it comes to restraining the spread of nuclear weapons.
Lawmakers should hold off considering the deal at least until the new Congress takes office in January. And they must insist that at a minimum, the restrictions already written into American law are strictly adhered to.
The next president will have to do a far better job containing the world’s growing nuclear appetites. And for that, he will need all of the moral authority and leverage he can muster.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 1:33 PM
the Worldwatch Institute reported in 1992 that India's record of nuclear reactors was among the worst in the world. The Institute reported India's reactors run only 40% of the time and produce merely 2% of the energy needs despite billions of dollars invested in them.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 1:39 PM
Nothing prohibits India from carrying out N-tests: Sibal
Chennai (PTI): The government on Monday said there is nothing in the waiver granted by Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) that stops India from carrying out nuclear tests in future.
"The right to test is sovereign. Nobody can take it away from us. There is nothing in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) (waiver) that prohibits" India, Union Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal told reporters on the sidelines of the Golden Jubilee celebration of IIT, Madras, referring to the allegations by the BJP and Left parties.
Asked for his reaction to the reported remarks by US President George Bush that India would not go for nuclear tests, he said "we are not guided by the statements made by people around the world".
To a question about what would be the worst case scenario if fuel supplies were disrupted in the event of conducting the test, Sibal said "it is not as if the moment the 123 agreement is signed that all our reactors are put under safeguards. It doesn't happen that way.
"In the IAEA India-sepcific safeguards' agreement, we have a window from now to 2014, in which there are stages and in phases we will put the nuclear reactors under safeguards".
"If and when in the future any test is required to be done because of change in geopolitical situation, which is not an issue today, at that point of time we would have a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel. There is no problem of any disruption", he said.
Sibal said India would look at acquiring nuclear reactors and the required fuel after getting the clearances. "We will then enter into bilateral arrangements with various countries to satisfy those needs of fuel and build up strategic reserves."
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 1:59 PM
Pakistan needs to sign the NPT so that this could happen, this is pretty much the same reason why Russia gave Iran an Nuclear reactor bypassing the NSG.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 9 2008, 11:28 PM
@wudi
Ok, my earlier link was about assistance to Pakistan before NPT which China signed in 1992. But even in subsequent years there were allegations in 1995-96 that China provided ring magnets and furnaces. Admittedly there is no conclusive proof of all allegations and no action was taken by US, but its well known that Chinese cooperation in Pakistan nuclear weapons exended beyond 1992.
The most recent proliferation controversy regarding Chinese nuclear trade with Pakistan concerned the late-1995 export of about 5,000 specially designed ring magnets from the China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNEIC) to an unsafeguarded Pakistani nuclear laboratory, which was allegedly involved in nuclear weapons work. China initially denied that the sale had taken place; a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman called the reports "groundless" and warned the United States not to impose sanctions based on "rumors." Pakistan also denied that any transfer of sensitive nuclear technology had taken place.
However, in talks with US officials China eventually privately admitted the sale had taken place, but argued that China should not be penalized, for two main reasons. First, China insisted that CNEIC had arranged the sale without the knowledge or consent of the central government. Second, China argued that the ring magnets were not magnetized, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Trigger List only covers ring magnets magnetized at a specific tolerance. Throughout the controversy, China publicly denied the sale and declared that it was a responsible state and did not support or encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The resolution of the conflict came on 10 May 1996, when the US State Department announced that it would not impose sanctions on China in exchange for a Chinese pledge not to provide nuclear assistance to unsafeguarded facilities, its reaffirmation of nonproliferation commitments, and its agreement to consult with the United States on export control and proliferation issues. On 11 May, China publicly made this pledge, and informally confirmed that its pledge covered the future transfer of ring magnets.
The resolution of the ring magnet controversy did not end US concerns regarding the Sino-Pakistani nuclear connection. Concerns remain about Chinese assistance in the construction of the Khushab reactor, and in August-September 1996 it was further reported that China had agreed to sell a special industrial furnace and high-technology diagnostic equipment to a Pakistani nuclear facility, equipment which reportedly can be used in the construction of nuclear bombs. China denounced reports of the sale as "groundless," and US officials indicated that they were satisfied that China was making a real effort to comply with its 11 May 1996 pledge, and that there was not enough evidence to establish that China was in violation of that commitment.
In a 1997 report by the Director of Central Intelligence, it stated that China "was the primary source of nuclear-related equipment and technology to Pakistan" during the second half of 1996. [Director of Central Intelligence, The Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions--July-December 1996, June 1997.]
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 10 2008, 3:52 AM
Tron you can LOL all you want, the fact remains China did provide all the tech to Pakistan for the Nuke tests.
Many many sources are saying the same thing, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
No matter how many sources i post, you will believe what you want to believe and try in vain to ridicule the source whether its the TRUTH or not.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 10 2008, 6:21 AM
A waiver that shakes NPT to its core
The Yomiuri Shimbun
The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, including Japan, has unanimously adopted a waiver of a ban on exports of nuclear fuel and technology to India. This is a one-off move that will allow civilian nuclear trade with India--a nation that has developed nuclear weapons without becoming a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The approval of the waiver essentially means that member nations of the group have shut their eyes to India's nuclear possession and lifted restrictions on nuclear cooperation with India for peaceful purposes. This is, for all intents and purposes, their recognition of India as a nuclear power.
This decision flew in the face of the NPT's principal objective to halt the number of nuclear powers. We find the NSG's decision extremely disconcerting.
NSG nations are obligated to comply with the guidelines stipulating export conditions for nuclear equipment and materials and nuclear technology and to strictly supervise their exports of such materials. Because India is outside the framework of the NPT and has not abandoned its nuclear weapons, NSG member nations naturally had not been able to export nuclear-related material to that country.
===
U.S. flexes its muscles
However, India was granted an exception from the NSG guideline due to some arm-twisting by the U.S. government, which wants its bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with India to take effect sooner rather than later. The only hurdle now remaining before the U.S.-India deal can take force is ratification by the U.S. Congress.
At the NSG general meeting in August, the United States demanded India be given an unconditional waiver. However, New Zealand, Switzerland and other counties had demanded several conditions be attached to the India agreement, including a clause stipulating an automatic cessation of the waiver if India conducted any more nuclear tests.
At the latest meeting, which was held to discuss the matter from scratch, the United States remained unbending in its opposition to a conditional approval of the waiver. Nations initially circumspect about the waiver eventually opted to go along with its proponents. Some observers have suggested that these countries changed their tune after weighing up the potential gains likely to flow from a cooperative relationship with India, which has been recording sizzling economic growth in recent years.
Attaching no conditions to the agreement on the waiver leaves several troubling loose ends.
===
A promise of sorts
In the NSG agreement, India made a commitment to maintain its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing voluntarily.
Despite this, India, which has not even signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, claims it has the right to conduct nuclear tests. This leaves open the worrying possibility that India might lift this moratorium depending on moves by China or Pakistan.
Japan's stance is that the exceptional treatment should be invalidated or rescinded if India resumes tests of its nuclear weapons.
However, we have doubts over whether the NSG would be able to agree to suspend the trade of nuclear fuel and technology once it starts, because such a decision on a trade ban must, in principle, be made by a unanimous vote.
India has concluded an inspection agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency--the U.N. nuclear watchdog--concerning civilian-use nuclear facilities. However, facilities for military use have been left untouched and the country has been pressing ahead with its nuclear development. As long as India's nuclear development continues largely unhindered, there is little likelihood that North Korea and Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Sept. 10, 2008)
(Sep. 10, 2008)
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 10 2008, 6:29 AM
India nuclear deal will help limit Iran, says US
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: September 10 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 10 2008 03:00
The Bush administration is pushing for congressional approval for a high-profile deal with India by arguing that the agreement will help to rein in Iran's nuclear programme and bolster the international non-proliferation system.
In an interview with the Financial Times, John Rood, the top arms control official at the state department, rejected criticism that the accord undermined efforts to crack down on the spread of nuclear weapons.
"India is a growing power: they are going to play a bigger and bigger role on the world stage," said Mr Rood, acting undersecretary of state for arms control. "So, if you are dealing with the challenge of, for example, Iran or Syria, it's far better to have the strong support of countries like India."
He was speaking after helping spearhead the US's successful effort to persuade more than 40 countries to permit nuclear trade with Delhi even though it has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The decision to grant India a special exemption came at a Vienna meeting of the nuclears supplier group, an international rule-setting body, at the weekend.
As a result of that breakthrough, US congressional approval is now the last significant hurdle before the US-Indian civil nuclear deal can become law. But with only a few weeks before Congress breaks for elections, the Bush administration has little time to convince legislators.
The State Department said the administration was doing "everything we possibly can" to pass the agreement into law and that it planned to submit the package to Congress within the next 24 to 48 hours.
US officials believe that congressional approval will eventually come, if only after Mr Bush leaves office. One reason is that last weekend's decision opens the way for France or Russia to export nuclear goods to India, but without congressional backing US companies will be unable to do so.
"No one is trying to rush anyone," said Mr Rood. But he argued that "it would be reasonable to encourage Congress to act with due deliberation" if Mr Bush formally determined that the deal met criteria set by Congress, such as furthering non-proliferation efforts.
"India's move strengthens the international nonproliferation regime," Mr Rood said, citing Delhi's efforts to improve its export control system.
But several prominent legislators argue that what they depict as a sweetheart deal for India will undermine attempts to convince Iran and North Korea to scale down their nuclear programmes. Some have also complained that the nuclear suppliers group was unduly generous to India.
While the meeting in Vienna set no explicit conditions on nuclear testing, the guiding US legislation on US-Indian nuclear co-operation states that if India carries out a nuclear test its special treatment shall cease. Mr Bush has said he regards parts of that legislation as merely "advisory".
""India is a growing power: they are going to play a bigger and bigger role on the world stage," said Mr Rood, acting undersecretary of state for arms control. "So, if you are dealing with the challenge of, for example, Iran or Syria, it's far better to have the strong support of countries like India.""
wow is that the reason, I'm sure Iran will think twice before it builds nuclear weapons.
Frankly speaking if Russia wants to give Iran help in its Nuclear project what can India do to stop it. Its better to have the NPT, but looks like Bush just wants to give nuclear weapons to India and decides to make the world a more dangerous place in th process.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 10 2008, 6:52 AM
Editorial: Deal damages N-free stance
Alert readers will have raised an eyebrow at an announcement this week that the Government has agreed to a waiver of the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that the United States can supply nuclear fuel and technology to India.
New Zealand's view was important because it is one of 45 countries in a "Nuclear Suppliers' Group" that is supposed to prevent the sale of nuclear material to countries that refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
As you would expect, New Zealand has been one of the members most reluctant to grant the waiver and has been lobbied by India and the US Government for several months. None of this would need to be explained by now if the National Party had been in power and Labour in opposition. Labour would have raised a hue and cry from the moment the US-India deal was put to the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Recent visits by India's Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hardeep Singh Puri, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, both of whom pressed for the waiver, would have been accompanied by intense public pressure on the Government to resist the request and probably demonstrations in the streets.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Labour and the Greens would have demanded that the Government not "sell out" New Zealand's anti-nuclear principles to curry favour with the US. But Labour is in power and essentially that is what it has done, with no audible objection from the Greens.
Helen Clark's Government has been responsible and reasonable on the issue, negotiating a number of conditions on the waiver, though none of them amounts to more than a watching brief on India's behaviour.
India is nuclear armed, as is its volatile neighbour Pakistan. Together they comprise perhaps the world's most dangerous nuclear zone. The US has agreed to supply India with technology for civilian nuclear purposes but there are fears this would only release India's other supplies for weapons development.
All this the US is doing in the hope that India will balance China's growing power, and, more immediately, support the Bush Administration in its campaign against the nuclear plans of Iran, which that country also claims to be limited to electricity generation.
The purposes of the deal do not seem worth the compromise to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Last week the London Economist, normally a supporter of US foreign policy, editorialised against the deal, pointing out that India acquired nuclear weapons by abusing technology intended for civilian purposes and the trade ban enforced by the Nuclear Suppliers Group has been the main underpinning of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The New York Times took a similar view in an editorial headed: "Let's hear it for New Zealand".
Only two other group members were also holding out, Ireland and Austria. Possibly it would be futile to resist such a consensus and New Zealand may have made the best bargain it could. But the decision leaves New Zealand's nuclear-free posture looking narrow, opportunistic and ludicrous. We are against anything nuclear in our patch but we are prepared to bless a serious breach in the integrity of the global attempt to contain nuclear proliferation.
If Labour finds itself back in opposition after this election it might be tempted to resume thumping the anti-nuclear tub, especially if the improving relationship with the US continues to a point that the next Government can revive naval exchanges and have our military invited back to exercises under Anzus. The decision on the India waiver might help bring that day closer. If it arrives, the Labour Party ought to remember its realism in office. Nuclear puritanism is finished.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 10 2008, 6:53 AM
Nuclear Distraction
By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
September 10, 2008
The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal came one step closer to final approval over the weekend, as the international Nuclear Suppliers Group granted its imprimatur. Yet the controversy over the proposed pact remains as fierce as ever, not least in India. As a result, ironically, it's still possible the deal could end up distracting both sides from the hard work of deepening their relationship.
This is mainly a consequence of how the deal has been oversold by politicians both in New Delhi and in Washington. From the time it was unveiled more than three years ago as an agreement-in-principle, its backers have framed the deal in terms of broader strategic objectives. Supporters in India have argued it will cement U.S.-India ties and facilitate technology transfers in fields beyond commercial nuclear power. Backers in the U.S. have argued the deal will make it easier for Washington to call on India as a counterweight to China's influence, and expand commercial opportunities for Americans.
But none of these claims is entirely realistic. In fact, these arguments merely distort the debate. In India, the nuclear deal has become a flashpoint for partisan debates about India's place in the world and how it should manage its relationship with the U.S. This will make the deal, and possibly the relationship, less stable if power changes hands between parties in a general election in India due at the latest by next April. And it's created unrealistic expectations in Washington.
In short, the hype over the nuclear deal needs to be tempered by certain realities.
First among these is that a durable U.S.-India partnership cannot be built on strategic opportunism, but rather must grow from shared national interests. In coming years, India will increasingly be aligned with the West economically. But strategically it can avail itself of multiple options, even as it moves from nonalignment to a contemporary, globalized strategic framework. In keeping with its long-standing preference for policy independence, India is likely to become multialigned, while tilting more toward the U.S.
Some clarity on this point from the deal's backers in New Delhi might have made it easier to secure support. It would also have helped had Prime Minister Manmohan Singh done what he had repeatedly promised: "build the broadest possible national consensus in favor of the deal." He should not have turned the deal into an openly partisan issue, for it will have to be implemented well after his government's term.
The danger now is that if the opposition wins the national election, it may re-open negotiations on the nuclear deal. That could risk sending the wrong signal about India's general commitment to maintaining positive relations with the U.S., given the significance this particular deal has assumed in that relationship.
The deal's backers in Washington have also been guilty of overselling it, albeit in different ways. On the strategic level, they have argued that the deal will bring India into the U.S. camp as a regional counterweight to China's growing influence. But it appears unlikely that India would allow itself to be used as a foil against an increasingly assertive China, lest Beijing step up military pressure along the long disputed Himalayan frontier and surrogate threats via Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh. India, as would any country, will continue to craft policy based on its own interests.
The Bush administration is also going overboard in touting the commercial benefits. As Bush administration letter to Congress, released last week, states, the deal is supposed to help revive the U.S. nuclear-power industry through exports and "access to Indian nuclear infrastructure," allowing "U.S. companies to build reactors more competitively here and in the rest of the world -- not just in India." With its acute shortage of nuclear engineers, the U.S. intends to tap India's vast technical manpower.
But not all of this is entirely realistic, especially expectations that India will be a boom market for U.S. nuclear exports. Even with the deal, nuclear power will continue to play a modest role in India's energy mix. With the proposed import of eight 1,000-megawatt reactors within the next four years, the share of nuclear power in India's electricity generation is unlikely to rise above the current 2.5%.
The Indian economy will probably not get much of a boost from the deal as a result. Furthermore, private investment in nuclear power will be hindered by many factors. The messy terms of the deal itself, with its many eclectic provisions designed to assuage nonproliferation concerns, will still impose many barriers on the transfer of nuclear fuel and technology, and not all of the conditions are even explicitly spelled out. Political uncertainty in India will also remain given the strong partisan opposition. And time is short to ratify the pact in Washington before elections in the U.S. bring in a new Congress and new administration.
The nuclear deal does play a role in bolstering U.S.-India ties (albeit not as much as politicians would have you believe). India has agreed to fully support U.S. nonproliferation initiatives, for example, and to consider participating in U.S.-led multinational military operations. And as a thank-you for the role President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice personally played in securing the suppliers group's approval, Prime Minister Singh is expected to sign shortly three agreements that U.S. officials say are critical to forge closer bilateral military ties. These will facilitate cooperation on logistical operations, provide for monitoring of the end uses of transferred weapons systems, and enhance communications interoperability. But the two sides could have made progress on all these fronts independent of a civil nuclear deal.
The deal may also benefit ongoing negotiations over sales of military equipment to India. In addition to the orders it recently placed for American maritime reconnaissance aircraft and military transport planes, India -- one of the world's biggest arms importers -- is gearing up to buy other American weapon systems. If Congress ratifies the nuclear deal, America is most likely to clinch the intense international competition to sell India 126 fighter-jets in a $10-billion contract. In this contest, Lockheed Martin has pitched its F-16 against Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
Yet such progress isn't dependent on a civil nuclear deal. Indeed, that may be the greatest danger of the current discussion. Because it has become such a controversial issue, the nuclear deal is threatening to overwhelm the broader dialogue India and the U.S. need to sustain about their relationship. The raging controversy hasn't done anyone any good.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 10 2008, 12:00 PM
Tron you can LOL all you want, the fact remains China did provide all the tech to Pakistan for the Nuke tests.
Many many sources are saying the same thing, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
No matter how many sources i post, you will believe what you want to believe and try in vain to ridicule the source whether its the TRUTH or not.
B2
This is a repost of a reply I've already given you at the A/P forum
Firstly dude, has China ever denied helping Pakistan build nuclear reactors??
Secondly as regards to secretly using the reactor to make enriched uranium or plutonium for nuclear weapons, well thats a bit rich coming from Indians isn't it?? Considering the Indians have been doing it illegally for decades using a Canadian reactor LOL
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/India/Nuclear/2103_2603.html excerpt The reactor was built with Canadian assistance while the United States provided the initial supply of heavy water. India pledged to the United States to use the CIRUS reactor only for peaceful purposes. Likewise, a 1956 Indo-Canadian agreement prohibited the use of plutonium produced in the reactor for non-peaceful purposes. Despite these restrictions, the CIRUS reactor provided the plutonium for India's 1974 "peaceful nuclear explosions." Canada and the United States subsequently ended all nuclear cooperation with India, including Canadian fuel shipments
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/166001 excerpt In 1976, Canada was the first nation to impose a nuclear embargo against India. It took this step because India's 1974 nuclear test device used plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor. Although India asserted the detonation was a "peaceful nuclear explosion" that was consistent with its pledge to use CIRUS exclusively for peaceful purposes, Ottawa rightly rejected this ploy and cut off nuclear co-operation with New Delhi.
Heres some quotes from your article:
"According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads"
"China is reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, as well as sufficient HEU for a few weapons."
"As of 1989 it was suggested that Pakistan had a workable bomb weighing only 400 pounds."
"Minister Yakub Khan was present at the Chinese Lop Nor test site to witness the test of a small nuclear device in May 1983, giving rise to speculation that a Pakistani-assembled device was detonated in this test."
Hmmm...so 2 "reported" 1 "suggested" and 1 "speculation" LOL
Dude all these are euphemisms for "WE THINK THEY DID IT BUT WE HAVE NO FREAKING PROOF" lol
Dude instead of all these "maybes" lets see some solid evidence!! eg. authentic documents, photographs, videos etc
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 11 2008, 2:02 AM
its none of our concern what a dogowner feeds its dog .......... or eat the dog himself
fckistan is ur lapdog feed it with whatever you like but dont deny .......... u r insulting the intelligence of others
For someone who has been banned several times and regulary resorts to using racist slurs when he starts to lose an argument to start to lecture others about "intelligence" is freaking laughable.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 11 2008, 2:13 PM
punit if you havent got anything good or beniificial to say stop messing the post up
If you're right, no one remembers. If you're wrong, no one forgets.
Why do people talk about an Islamic bomb?... This is a Pakistani bomb. In the case of India, you don't talk of a
vegetarian bomb."
---Pakistan's Minister of Information, Mushahid Hussain in an interview with Der Spiegel (June 8, 1998)
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 12 2008, 12:31 AM
"Secondly as regards to secretly using the reactor to make enriched uranium or plutonium for nuclear weapons, well thats a bit rich coming from Indians isn't it?? Considering the Indians have been doing it illegally for decades using a Canadian reactor"
The Indians did not do anything 'illegal' with canadian reactors. Technically, The 1974 explosion is a peaceful nuclear explosion and as such it did not contradict the agreement with the canadians.It was the canadians who backed off 'thinking' that it is not a peaceful explosion.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides
- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 12 2008, 12:49 AM
Quote:arse ......... poor boy .......... truth hurts ...... pak is chinese lap dog & will continue to remain so
punit the indian attack dog ready to pounce on people that are owning his country men
PUNIT THE ATTACK DOG HERE BOY HERE BOY TAKE YOUR BONE BOY , SIT , ROLL OVER
If you're right, no one remembers. If you're wrong, no one forgets.
Why do people talk about an Islamic bomb?... This is a Pakistani bomb. In the case of India, you don't talk of a
vegetarian bomb."
---Pakistan's Minister of Information, Mushahid Hussain in an interview with Der Spiegel (June 8, 1998)
This message has been edited by arsenal100 on Sep 12, 2008 12:50 AM
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 12 2008, 1:42 PM
punit whats that got to do with me im talking about you as a indivisual being a attack dog
If you're right, no one remembers. If you're wrong, no one forgets.
Why do people talk about an Islamic bomb?... This is a Pakistani bomb. In the case of India, you don't talk of a
vegetarian bomb."
---Pakistan's Minister of Information, Mushahid Hussain in an interview with Der Spiegel (June 8, 1998)
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 12 2008, 8:25 PM
The Indians did not do anything 'illegal' with canadian reactors. Technically, The 1974 explosion is a peaceful nuclear explosion and as such it did not contradict the agreement with the canadians.It was the canadians who backed off 'thinking' that it is not a peaceful explosion.
No offence dude, but thats the most ridiculous thing I've heard, you believe nuclear weapons are peaceful?? wow and the Indians call us "brainwashed" LOL
Next you'll be telling me you believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy LOL
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 12 2008, 9:42 PM
"No offence dude, but thats the most ridiculous thing I've heard, you believe nuclear weapons are peaceful?? wow and the Indians call us "brainwashed" LOL "
Dude, read my post again ! India did not voilate any letter with the canadians.The 1974 explosion is a peaceful nuclear explosion.It is not a bomb and as such it did not contridict any agrements with the canadians.But the canadians 'assumed' or 'thought' like you are assuming or thinking that it was a bomb and as such backed off from the agreement.
peaceful nuclear explosions are not nuclear weapon tests.
Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs.
The Smiling Buddha, India’s first explosive nuclear device was typified by the Indian Government as a peaceful nuclear explosion; however, most of the international community thought that the test was mainly a weapons test.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides
- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 14 2008, 5:12 AM
Dude, read my post again ! India did not voilate any letter with the canadians.The 1974 explosion is a peaceful nuclear explosion.It is not a bomb and as such it did not contridict any agrements with the canadians.But the canadians 'assumed' or 'thought' like you are assuming or thinking that it was a bomb and as such backed off from the agreement.
peaceful nuclear explosions are not nuclear weapon tests.
Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs.
LOL dude theres NO such thing as a peaceful nuclear explosion!! LOL
As for using it for creating canals thats just a convienent excuse!! you can use conventional explosives to do that! WITHOUT THE FREAKING HIGH LEVEL OF RADIATION!!
Also if it was such a peaceful explosion, why was there such a high level of secrecy involved in the whole preparation of the Indian explosion?? If it was peaceful why not be open about it with other countries??
"The Smiling Buddha, India’s first explosive nuclear device was typified by the Indian Government as a peaceful nuclear explosion; however, most of the international community thought that the test was mainly a weapons test."
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 14 2008, 10:40 AM
Its really fun to see the Chinese getting so jittery about the nuclear deal. I think they know that the wide technological margin between India and China will be drastically reduced now and are raking up all kinds of excuses they can.
So China didnt sign the NPT before proliferating nuclear technology to other countries. News is that India has NOT signed the NPT till date and has not proliferated nuke tech to other countries.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 23 2008, 5:23 AM
\\dude theres NO such thing as a peaceful nuclear explosion!! \\
Dude, there is such a thing called peaceful nuclear explosion. Peaceful nuclear explosion distinguishes itself from a 'nuclear weapon test'.
-------------------------------
\\As for using it for creating canals thats just a convienent excuse!! you can use conventional explosives to do that! WITHOUT THE FREAKING HIGH LEVEL OF RADIATION!!
Also if it was such a peaceful explosion, why was there such a high level of secrecy involved in the whole preparation of the Indian explosion?? If it was peaceful why not be open about it with other countries??\\
It was a secrecy because it was India's first nuclear explosion even though it is peaceful in nature.And just like any other govt, the Indian Govt at that time thought not to announce it before hand because of security considerations !
It does not ! As statement says and i quote ' however, most of the international community thought that the test was mainly a weapons test' . The key word here is 'thought' which also means speculation or assumption. Just because i assume that you are wrong does not make you wrong. You have to prove it.The so called 'international community' never was able to prove that the 1974 explosion was a nuclear weapons' test. It just speculated and assumed that it was one and unilaterallly abrogated the commitments it gave to Indian govt based on speculations. It was not India which broked any commitments, it was the canadians and other 'international community' which broke it based on speculations !\\
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 26 2008, 2:57 AM
Dude, there is such a thing called peaceful nuclear explosion. Peaceful nuclear explosion distinguishes itself from a 'nuclear weapon test'.
Dude just explain to me, just what made the the Indian nuke test "peaceful" compared with say China's test in 1964 and even Pakistan's test in the 1990s?? Did it created any canals or tunnels for public use?? don't forget the Indian nuke test took place in the middle of the freaking desert!!
Shouting slogans of "peace" or even painting "peace" in big bright letters on the side of your Indian nuke won't actually make it peaceful dude LOL
I will never try to claim China's nuke test was peaceful, because it wasn't!! its objective was to make nuclear weapons, AND EVERY NATION THAT HAS PERFORMED A NUCLEAR TEST HAS WENT ON TO MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCLUDING INDIA!!
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 27 2008, 8:36 PM
//Dude just explain to me, just what made the the Indian nuke test "peaceful" compared with say China's test in 1964 and even Pakistan's test in the 1990s?? //
Dude, Its really immaterial to go into technical differences of a peaceful nuclear explosions and nuclear weapons test.If the canadians and the 'international community' say that 1974 explosion is a bomb, they should have come back to the Indians with strong evidence supporting their speculations.Or at least they should have exammined the evidence which the Indian Department of Atomic Energy was willing to provide. They did neither and instead unilaterally abrogated their agreements with India.There is no sentence anywhere in the agreement which says India should not carry peaceful nuclear explosions.As such, India never voilated any agreements.It is a case of speculation turned into a fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Shouting slogans of "peace" or even painting "peace" in big bright letters on the side of your Indian nuke won't actually make it peaceful dude//
As usual you are misrepresenting my lines.When did i said Indian nukes are peaceful ? All i said was the 1974 explosion which was used as a pretext by the canadians to unilaterally break a signed treaty was not a nuclear weapons test ! No where in the agreement was written that India should not carry a peaceful nuclear explosion.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 29 2008, 3:34 AM
Dude, Its really immaterial to go into technical differences of a peaceful nuclear explosions and nuclear weapons test.If the canadians and the 'international community' say that 1974 explosion is a bomb, they should have come back to the Indians with strong evidence supporting their speculations.Or at least they should have exammined the evidence which the Indian Department of Atomic Energy was willing to provide. They did neither and instead unilaterally abrogated their agreements with India.There is no sentence anywhere in the agreement which says India should not carry peaceful nuclear explosions.As such, India never voilated any agreements.It is a case of speculation turned into a fact.
Dude, You keep on claiming that the Indian nuclear explosion was peaceful in 1974, so I'll ask you again WHAT ASPECTS OF THE INDIAN NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WAS PEACEFUL COMPARED WITH CHINA'S OR PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS??
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
September 29 2008, 9:29 AM
AryanArya
Let me make my question clearer for you:
WHAT ASPECTS OF THE INDIAN NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1974 WERE "PEACEFUL" COMPARED WITH CHINA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1964 OR PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1998??
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
October 10 2008, 4:55 AM
\\WHAT ASPECTS OF THE INDIAN NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1974 WERE "PEACEFUL" COMPARED WITH CHINA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1964 OR PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1998??\\
Dude, isnt that a irrelevant question ? The Indo-Canadian agreement is basically a law issue.The canadians unilaterallly withdrew from a signed treaty saying Indian conducted a nuclear test.Now India asked the canadians to show the proff that the agreement bars India from carry a nuclear test . The canadians and the international community has no answers to that then and they have no answers to it now ! The peaceful part of the nuclear test is not with the technology but with its objectives and intentions.Technology is always nutral.The difference between India's 1974 nuclear test with chinese 1964 nucleat test or even with pakistan's test is its objectives.Both the chinese and the pakistanis never said that their tests are peaceful .But India openly stated its 1974 position is peaceful.If the outsiders think thats not the case, the burden is on them to prove that India conducted nuke test for nuclear bombs and not for any other purposes.Till now none of the foreign countries were able to prove that 1974 explosion is a nuclear weapons test.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
October 10 2008, 8:17 PM
Dude, isnt that a irrelevant question ? The Indo-Canadian agreement is basically a law issue.The canadians unilaterallly withdrew from a signed treaty saying Indian conducted a nuclear test.Now India asked the canadians to show the proff that the agreement bars India from carry a nuclear test . The canadians and the international community has no answers to that then and they have no answers to it now ! The peaceful part of the nuclear test is not with the technology but with its objectives and intentions.Technology is always nutral.The difference between India's 1974 nuclear test with chinese 1964 nucleat test or even with pakistan's test is its objectives.Both the chinese and the pakistanis never said that their tests are peaceful .But India openly stated its 1974 position is peaceful.If the outsiders think thats not the case, the burden is on them to prove that India conducted nuke test for nuclear bombs and not for any other purposes.Till now none of the foreign countries were able to prove that 1974 explosion is a nuclear weapons test.
LOL So the Indian nuclear test was "peaceful" BECAUSE THE INDIANS SAID SO?? LOL what a joke! and utter rubbish!!
Since theres NO DIFFERENCE between China's and India's nuclear tests, how can you seriously claim one is peaceful compared to the other?? Just simply because you Indians declare it is?? LOL no wonder no one believe you Indians! how pathetic!!
BTW dude why did it take you nearly 2 weeks to reply?? If you haven't the time then say so!
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
October 12 2008, 9:14 PM
\\LOL So the Indian nuclear test was "peaceful" BECAUSE THE INDIANS SAID SO?? LOL what a joke! and utter rubbish!! Since theres NO DIFFERENCE between China's and India's nuclear tests, how can you seriously claim one is peaceful compared to the other?? Just simply because you Indians declare it is?? LOL no wonder no one believe you Indians! how pathetic!! \\
Its not al all rubbish.Its perfectly makes sense.The Indians contention is that their tests is peaceful nuclear test.You may disagree that there is nothing called a peaceful nuclear test but in nuclear agreements, there is a differentiation between a nuclear weapon test and a peaceful nuclear test and in legally speaking India did not break any agreements with canada or anybody when it conducted its 1974 explosion.Just because you have no understanding between a nuclear weapon test and a peaceful explosion, that does not mean there is no difference.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
October 13 2008, 10:41 PM
Its not al all rubbish.Its perfectly makes sense.The Indians contention is that their tests is peaceful nuclear test.You may disagree that there is nothing called a peaceful nuclear test but in nuclear agreements, there is a differentiation between a nuclear weapon test and a peaceful nuclear test and in legally speaking India did not break any agreements with canada or anybody when it conducted its 1974 explosion.Just because you have no understanding between a nuclear weapon test and a peaceful explosion, that does not mean there is no difference.
Dude thats exactly what I've been telling you to do, tell me THE DIFFERENCE??
WHAT MAKES INDIA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION PEACEFUL COMPARED TO CHINA'S??
This message has been edited by tron. on Oct 13, 2008 11:28 PM
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
October 25 2008, 8:35 PM
\\Dude thats exactly what I've been telling you to do, tell me THE DIFFERENCE??
WHAT MAKES INDIA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION PEACEFUL COMPARED TO CHINA'S?? \\
I already told you the difference in my previous post.You are simply not able to understand it ! Nuclear technology is dual use one.The difference between India's explosion and China's explosion is not in technology but in its use.India's 1974 explosion is a peaceful nuclear explosion which was not intented for nuclear bomb.China's 1964 explosion is presicely meant for a nuclear bomb.As such India never broke any treaty with canada or anyone.It was the canadians who broked the treaty.
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
October 27 2008, 2:48 AM
I already told you the difference in my previous post.You are simply not able to understand it ! Nuclear technology is dual use one.The difference between India's explosion and China's explosion is not in technology but in its use.India's 1974 explosion is a peaceful nuclear explosion which was not intented for nuclear bomb.China's 1964 explosion is presicely meant for a nuclear bomb.As such India never broke any treaty with canada or anyone.It was the canadians who broked the treaty.
LOL, So what you are saying is there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Chinese and Indian nuclear tests right? And the only difference is THE INDIANS SAIDS ITS PEACEFUL!! LOL what a freaking joke!!
So just because the Indians says its "peaceful" we're all suppose to believe them unconditionally?? totally pathetic reasoning!! LOL
So my question to you once again is:
WHAT ASPECTS OF THE INDIAN NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1974 WERE "PEACEFUL" COMPARED WITH CHINA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1964??
Dude if you have NO EVIDENCE just say so!! Don't make up crap pathetic reasons to justify your claims!! LOL
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
November 13 2008, 3:42 PM
\\LOL, So what you are saying is there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Chinese and Indian nuclear tests right? And the only difference is THE INDIANS SAIDS ITS PEACEFUL!! LOL what a freaking joke!! So just because the Indians says its "peaceful" we're all suppose to believe them unconditionally?? totally pathetic reasoning!!
WHAT ASPECTS OF THE INDIAN NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1974 WERE "PEACEFUL" COMPARED WITH CHINA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN 1964?? LOL\\
Ok.So you have understood zero from what i said ! LOL
Again, if you think there is nothing called 'peaceful nuclear explosion' then, there is nothing to argue since your understanding is not going beyond 'nucler tests equals nuclear bombs" !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\Dude if you have NO EVIDENCE just say so!! Don't make up crap pathetic reasons to justify your claims!! LOL \\
Dude, it is 'crap' to you because you have no understanding about a peaceful nuclear explosion.I tried to explain it you but you are simply not getting it !
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
November 15 2008, 3:28 AM
Ok.So you have understood zero from what i said ! LOL
Again, if you think there is nothing called 'peaceful nuclear explosion' then, there is nothing to argue since your understanding is not going beyond 'nucler tests equals nuclear bombs" !
Dude your wikipedia article contradict and disprove what you are saying!! LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions excerpt
The Smiling Buddha, Indias first explosive nuclear device was typified by the Indian Government as a peaceful nuclear explosion; however, most of the international community thought that the test was mainly a weapons test.
Now stop talking rubbish and answer my question:
WHAT ASPECT OF INDIA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WAS "PEACEFUL" COMPARED TO CHINA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION??
And don't give me a crappy answer like "because we Indians said so" LOL
Not everyone is stupid enough to blindly and unconditionally believe what the Indians say!!
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
November 26 2008, 11:20 PM
\\Dude your wikipedia article contradict and disprove what you are saying!! \\
No, it does not. Its just that You simply did not get it ! LOL
This was the line which you were referring to !
'The Smiling Buddha, Indias first explosive nuclear device was typified by the Indian Government as a peaceful nuclear explosion; however, most of the international community thought that the test was mainly a weapons test. '
As i said in my previous post, the key word here is 'thought' which also means speculation or assumption.The so called 'international community' never was able to prove that the 1974 explosion was a nuclear weapons' test. It just speculated and assumed that it was one and unilaterallly abrogated the commitments it gave to Indian govt based on speculations.If the canadians or anyone does not beleive that its not a peaceful nuclear test(now dont show me your ignorance by saying that there is nothing called peaceful nucler explosions), then they should have provided the evidence to the Indian govt to support their assumption.But they did not do it and the fault for breaking the agrement lies with the canadians.
Interestingly, after a gap of 35 years after canada unjustly broke the treaty with the Indians on the pretext of a mere speculation, India and Canada are again negotiating a comprehensive Nuclear deal after Canada backed the Indian nuclear deal in NSG.
\\Now stop talking rubbish and answer my question: WHAT ASPECT OF INDIA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WAS "PEACEFUL" COMPARED TO CHINA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION?? And don't give me a crappy answer like "because we Indians said so" LOL Not everyone is stupid enough to blindly and unconditionally believe what the Indians say!! \\
Dude, you are simply not able to understand what i am saying.I dont know if you are acting dumb or really dumb ? There is no comparision between India's and China's nuclear explosions. China's explosion as the chinese themselves acknowledged is a nuclear weapons test.India's explosion as the Indians themselves said is not a nuclear weapons test.Now, if any foreign govt does not agree with India's annoucement, they were free to submit the evidence to the Indian Govt and 'prove' that it was a nuclear weapons test(like china's) and not a peaceful nuclear explosion as the Indians were saying.Now, the international community was never able to prove that India's explosion is a nuclear weapons test.Now, who is at fault ? Is it India which asked the international community to provide eveidence to their baseless allegations or the canadians who never were able to prove that it was a nuclear weapons test but unilaterally abrogated a signed treaty with a sovereign country based on mere speculation ?
===========================================
Let Noble Thoughts Come to Us from All Sides- RigVeda
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
November 27 2008, 5:12 AM
^^And your just repeating yourselft that the nuclear is explosion was peacefult because the indian government said so.
If that your belief and interpretation that fine, but because the western governemtns banned the sale of nuclear tech for decades after the explosion tells you how "peaceful" they thought it was.
This message has been edited by dzhuang on Nov 27, 2008 6:09 AM This message has been edited by dzhuang on Nov 27, 2008 6:08 AM
pink panties on. (Login Type98G) Middle kingdom(China)
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
November 27 2008, 7:39 AM
At that time India show the west the middle finger, it is most likely India will show the west the middle finger again.
Re: 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
November 29 2008, 3:58 AM
No, it does not. Its just that You simply did not get it ! LOL
As i said in my previous post, the key word here is 'thought' which also means speculation or assumption.The so called 'international community' never was able to prove that the 1974 explosion was a nuclear weapons' test. It just speculated and assumed that it was one and unilaterallly abrogated the commitments it gave to Indian govt based on speculations.If the canadians or anyone does not beleive that its not a peaceful nuclear test(now dont show me your ignorance by saying that there is nothing called peaceful nucler explosions), then they should have provided the evidence to the Indian govt to support their assumption.But they did not do it and the fault for breaking the agrement lies with the canadians.
So using your logic, a similar analogy would be, Since No one can provide evidence that disproves the existence of the Abominable Snowman, so therefore the Abominable Snowman DEFINITELY EXISTS?? LOL, what a dumb logic!
Dude if the Indian claim of peaceful nuclear explosion is convincing and credible then how come the international community were UNANIMOUS in their conclusion that it was a weapons test??
Interestingly, after a gap of 35 years after canada unjustly broke the treaty with the Indians on the pretext of a mere speculation, India and Canada are again negotiating a comprehensive Nuclear deal after Canada backed the Indian nuclear deal in NSG.
Dude, 35 years is a VERY LONG TIME in politics!
Dude, you are simply not able to understand what i am saying.I dont know if you are acting dumb or really dumb ? There is no comparision between India's and China's nuclear explosions. China's explosion as the chinese themselves acknowledged is a nuclear weapons test.India's explosion as the Indians themselves said is not a nuclear weapons test.Now, if any foreign govt does not agree with India's annoucement, they were free to submit the evidence to the Indian Govt and 'prove' that it was a nuclear weapons test(like china's) and not a peaceful nuclear explosion as the Indians were saying.Now, the international community was never able to prove that India's explosion is a nuclear weapons test.Now, who is at fault ? Is it India which asked the international community to provide eveidence to their baseless allegations or the canadians who never were able to prove that it was a nuclear weapons test but unilaterally abrogated a signed treaty with a sovereign country based on mere speculation ?
So your best evidence and defence for your claim that India's nuclear explosion is peaceful is still BECAUSE THE INDIANS SAID SO then?? Totally pathetic! LOL
Well I'm going to say your a idiot and my evidence is BECAUSE I SAID SO! LOL
For the umpteenth time, WHAT ASPECT OF INDIA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WAS "PEACEFUL" COMPARED TO CHINA'S NUCLEAR EXPLOSION??
Its a simple straight forward question!!
Current Topic - 'Tests must for maintaining N-deterrence' : India
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1226590856.JPG)
![[linked image]](http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/qq103/silverstone_album/1227774682.jpg)