An act of nuclear proliferation

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

These issues were raised a few months ago as well when Simon Henderson published his original story on the alleged AQ Khan letter, and various anomalies were pointed out then as well.

Ill quote a retired Canadian Colonel who is an avid China and nuke watcher (Officer of Engineers) comments from another forum here that point out some of the glaring issues with the claims made in this alleged letter (formatting mine):

1. Hanzhong was built by the Russians, not Pakistan.

2. I cannot find a Li Chew, the supposed Chinese Minister responsible for nuclear weapons development, anywhere on China's Who's Who.

3. HEU are NOT shipped in bricks in lead coffins, especially when the other side has absolutely no clue that he's about to receive them.

This puts the veracity of the entire letter in doubt.

Some other valid concerns he raised:

This letter has not been verified as being from AQ Khan. Not only are the claims so unbelieveable wild, it also points to a man who knows crap all about OPSEC ... if the letter is true. Bear in mind that this letter not only puts him in danger but his family as well. The Paks placed him under house arrest with the approval of both Beijing and Washington. Islamabad, Beijing, and Washington could have also easily accidented him or suicided him ... and his family.

If the claims of the letter is true (and I cannot verify the Chinese nuclear weapons minister) and the Chinese told him that Islamabad would tossed him to the wolves after he did his part, then, writing this letter is a death warrant for his family.

Lastly, the claim that the 50kgs have been turned into 2 bombs do not fit the timeline. By this time, the Paks have reduced the required uranium in their designs, as shown by what the Swiss found, those 50kgs should have been turned into at least 3 bombs, if not four.

Does not mean that this letter is not true but something just doesn't feel right.

I am not suggesting that one should merely accept what OoE has said, but he raises valid points, most of which can be verified through open source material, such as the points about the reactor construction.

 

[ambidex]

 

[lockh33d]

 

[zagahaga]

for that matter it's rumored that US made the A-bomb with the help of german scientists it managed to grab before russians at the end of WW2.. So the real credit should in fact go to Germany if U believe the "rumors" to be true.

you do know that enstine made theA BOMB ..... hitler was confronted by him he showed him it .... he thought he was retarded.... went to america and showed it there bingooooooo usa got a A BOMB

 

[hindesi]

O'reilly? care to elaborate zagahaga?

 

[oceanx]

These issues were raised a few months ago as well when Simon Henderson published his original story on the alleged AQ Khan letter, and various anomalies were pointed out then as well.

...

Good for someone to flesh out a little background to this sudden "breaking" story. Clearly as others have said elsewhere, the timing of this means we are only hearing about it because of BHO's trip to Asia.

It's all and only about Iran and what the "players" must pony up to satisfy the "international consensus".

Regardless of the details, even if we take the story at face value and imagine that Pakistan did somehow "advance" a little stash to showcase proper "deterrent", it would still not have been anyhere near "clandestine".

For there'd be no deterrent if those whom you seek to deter didn't know you have what it takes to deter them. Therefore logically, if the story was to be believed, Israeli hawks and other "malficients" would have been made aware of this "transaction" back in 1982 through convincing channels, thereby nullifying any secrecy ...

In the end, this was non-news after all, even if the story's overall veracity gets vouched for later on by some nefarious, independent, objective third party ...

Oh well, but I got to spend a couple of hours learning meseelf "complex geometric shapes" ... all was not lost.

 

[toxic_pus]

In the case of India, where do you think India got all of its Plutonium from in the 70s? If Dr. Khan and these "journalists" from a neo-con mouthpiece are to be taken at face value, then Pakistan at least "borrowed" a stash honourably.

Whereas India stole its plutonium back then entirely from a Canadian reactor donated for scientific/medical research.

Experts schmersperts, the question is, did India, or did India NOT "indigenously" obtain its Plutonium for its weapons? And what did your beloved National Tree Huggers Association say about that in black-and-white?

"The plutonium for the nuclear device exploded by India in May 1974 was obtained from its CIRUS research reactor and recovered at the Trombay reprocessing plant ..." as in here; or

"The plutonium used in India’s first nuclear test in 1974 was produced in CIRUS, thus making CIRUS India’s first production reactor." as in here for anyone interested.​

So much for them vouching for your "nuclear chastity".

[...]


Sure, the Candian Nuclear Association lies; the CBC lies; India's own Rediff lies (one of your "analysts" admitted there that even to this day, 1/3 of Bharat's Plutonium comes from the Canadian-built CIRUS!) - and books such as this one also lies ...

In spite of that spirited effort of yours, the allegation that India ‘stole’ Plutonium from CIRUS reactor to arm its first ‘nuke’ continues to remain unsubstantiated. None of the sources, that you have quoted, says that the Plutonium that went into the nuclear devise was sourced from Canada. What they say is that CIRUS was used to process the Plutonium into weapons grade, hence ‘obtained’ from CIRUS. All of this is true. However, Plutonium, which fueled the first nuclear devise, was actually chemically separated at PHOENIX, from the irradiated Uranium produced at CIRUS (refer David Albright, Mark Hibbs, Frans Barkhout, William Waker etc.). The natural Uranium that went into CIRUS was all Indian, mined at Jaduguda mines, India’s only Uranium mine.

The reality is, India simply couldn’t have used Canadian Plutonium even if it wanted, because Canada didn’t supply any Uranium or Plutonium to India, following India’s refusal to procure any from Canada. If you had this information, you wouldn’t have accused India of ‘stealing’ something that was never there to ‘steal’ in the first place.

Screaming Skull has already explained everything about the source of the Plutonium, but as usual, comprehension skill, or the lack of it, came in the way.

Also, the claim that CIRUS was ‘donated’ by Canada, is ridiculous. The total cost of the project was $ 17 mil, of which Canada provided a foreign aid of $ 9.5 mil. India paid the rest and that included labour/material cost, cost of freight, insurance etc. That is not ‘donation’, no matter how elastic your imagination is.

All the brouhaha regarding CIRUS was not because India had used Canadian Uranium or Plutonium to build its first ‘nuke’, which it didn’t and couldn’t in any case, but because India had used a facility to build a ‘nuke’, which was ostensibly provided to India for research and was thus prohibited to use the facilities for anything other than ‘peaceful purpose’. A case can be made, pretty successfully, that the nuclear explosion in 1974 was not a breech of agreement. But that’s for another day.

Now we can discuss the real reasons why the "Chakra" had no intersection on your "Vennginity Diagram". Every intersection - one way or another - represented an act of "willful" transference of nuclear technology - in the days before the NPT regime was widely acceded to. Even in the case of USA-->USSR transference, one can claim a "willful act" or acts by some US citizens, albeit without the approval of US government.

The acts may have been wrong - but there were at least some elements of consent involved in each "intersection" - or transaction if you will.

But for India, whereby the transfer of nuclear knowledge, engineering prowess, and production acumen were done by ruse, duplicity, and entirely without consent. That's why you will not see Canada, the unwitting cuckolder in this case - on your "Vennginity Diagram" - for Canada could not be held responsible in any meaningful sense.

[...]

Finally - once again, just because Canada is not on your "Vennginity diagram" since Canada doesn't want anything to do with it, and least of all condone your waving a "chastity certificate" in front while cuckolding in the back, let me break the news to you again: there are no innocent "virgins" in the Temple of Nuclear Armament.

There is a reason why India is so lonely in that venn diagram of Paine & McKinzie. The venn diagram is indicative of mutual sharing of knowledge regarding nuclear weapons, not nuclear technology. Your inability to make that distinction is appalling but hardly surprising. Substantial part of India’s nuclear technology of course comes from US, UK, Canada, and later Russia. But nuclear weapon program is pretty much indigenous. In that sense and to that extent, India continues to be ‘virgin’. However your attempt to explain away the venn diagram is amusing. More amusing is your attempt to explain why US and Russia intersect, in spite of covert transfer of bomb details by Klause Fuchs, but India and Canada do not.

Anytime you are ready to apologize for these baseless accusations, feel free to do so. But before that, listen to Skull’s screaming advice: ‘use your prudence and bark up the right tree’.

 

[oceanx]

In spite of that spirited effort of yours, the allegation that India ‘stole’ Plutonium from CIRUS reactor to arm its first ‘nuke’ continues to remain unsubstantiated.
...

Oh sure, why not - everything remains unsubstantiated except for my inability to comprehend "complex geometric shapes". And doggone it, Neal "little giant step" Armstrong just took a stroll around Arizona and called it the moon ...

Look, I see what you are saying: the raw uranium didn't have a Maple Leaf stamp on it. It was all mined on the soil of Bharat and lifted on the backs of the "sons of the soil".

Let's see, if I donated half a car to you to travel to and from school - on the condition that you use it only to travel to and from school. But you elected to break the promise and use it as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery and got caught. Are you saying I have no right to hold a grudge simply because the car ran on "your" gasoline?

Okay, how impudent of me to compare Bharat Mata the Holy Motha to some bank robber! So how'bout an example closer to home? If Russia or China exported reactors to Iran for the latter to use to get HEU or Plutonium from its own raw material- that would not be an act of "proliferation" then? Hmmm, wonder what the Yanks and everyone else would say.

When it comes to nuclear weapons technology - there is no splitting hair between those who supplied raw material vs those who supplied the means to process the material (in our specific case unwittingly and by guile).

An act of cheating is an act of cheating - whose sperm was transferred or whether any sperm was involved at all does not factor.

Look if it makes you feel better, Tox, then let me apologize and rephrase:

India betrayed Canada's good will and trust by subverting well-intentioned transfer/donation of Canadian technology for "illicit purposes".

Okay, okay, maybe India didn't

CBC Barbara Frum Interview with India UN Ambassador, Samar Sen on May 20, 1974

BF -Ambassador Sen, did India not violate some agreements with Canada in developing its atom bomb?

SS -India did not develop an atom bomb.

BF -What did it develop?

SS -India just exploded an atomic device, nothing to do with a bomb. It is just one of the processes which is necessary for using atomic energy. How did you get the idea for an atom bomb?
​

Once again, an "honest" defence would have been to emphasize that India had to do what it had to do. And I made it plenty clear from day one in my own posts that I find the NPT a bit of a "racket" in the sense that it requires some nations to join as "non-nuclear" states without setting forth criteria that I as just a regular joe consider 100% convincing and fair.

So if it were me who was vested with the responsibility to make decisions in India back then, guess what ...

There are some - in Asia and elsewhere - who were forced by circumstance to sell out their precious selves in order for their siblings to eat and go to school.

With them I sympathize.

But if one of them turns around trying to convince me that she is the lone "virgin" while everybody else be a "h*".

That makes me feel sad.

Having said that, the venerated Tree Huggers' "Vennginity diagram" did bring a chuckle.

 

[oceanx]

BTW, I also tracked down the individual who doctored that picture in the previous page and berated him/her/it for such an barbarous act. All I heard back was:

"Doctoring - what doctoring? Picture - what picture?

All we know was my electrons went in, and poof, my electrons came out. And you got a problem with that?"​

Since I beg to differ - so l wish to give credit to the rightful artist himself.

 

[toxic_pus]

That is one sad hoch poch of strawman, goal-post shifting and cognitive dissonance. Its business as usual.

Oh sure, why not - everything remains unsubstantiated except for my inability to comprehend "complex geometric shapes". And doggone it, Neal "little giant step" Armstrong just took a stroll around Arizona and called it the moon ...

We understand. People resort to irrelevant references and meaningless sarcasm when their nuts, figuratively speaking, are in the anvil. No problem. Carry on. You squirm, we enjoy.

Look, I see what you are saying: the raw uranium didn't have a Maple Leaf stamp on it. It was all mined on the soil of Bharat and lifted on the backs of the "sons of the soil".

And hence your allegation that ‘India stole its plutonium back then entirely from a Canadian reactor ’ is a flat out lie, an inevitable result of ‘speaking twice before thinking’.

It took you 3 long posts, 2 by Skull and 1 by yours truly, to realize your error of fact and judgment. All of this could have been discerned from the very first chart that Skull had posted earlier. Goes on to show, what happens when a prejudiced mind begins an argument with a preconceived notion. From then onwards, it becomes a case of ‘I see what I like and I like what I see’.

Let's see, if I donated half a car to you to travel to and from school - on the condition that you use it only to travel to and from school. But you elected to break the promise and use it as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery and got caught. Are you saying I have no right to hold a grudge simply because the car ran on "your" gasoline?

Wrong analogy. But then again what was I expecting of someone who has proved time and again that her grasp on matters she speaks in, almost never goes beyond the elementary. CIRUS can’t be an equivalent of car, by no stretch of bumbling imagination. CIRUS, if anything, can be equivalent of a car manufacturing plant, where the steel, plastic, glass, rubber go in and a complete car comes out from the other end. Whether India uses this car as car-pool for school kids, or as ‘getaway vehicle in a bank robbery’, is entirely India’s prerogative. So no, you as the provider of car manufacturing plant can’t have a grudge on how the owner of car uses it.

Capiche? As for the ‘promise’ part, I will come to it a little later.

Okay, how impudent of me to compare Bharat Mata the Holy Motha to some bank robber! So how'bout an example closer to home? If Russia or China exported reactors to Iran for the latter to use to get HEU or Plutonium from its own raw material- that would not be an act of "proliferation" then? Hmmm, wonder what the Yanks and everyone else would say.

Strawman, but I’ll bite. If any export of reactor, that has the potential of creating a nuclear weapon, has been made after the signing and ratification of NPT then it is illegal ‘proliferation’. In case of Iran, I suppose the export of nuclear reactor had happening after those inconvenient events of signing and ratification. Hence all the screaming.

Anyway, you are climbing a slippery slope. The accusation of ‘proliferation’, if at all it can be made in case of CIRUS, would be leveled against Canada, your fatherland. Not India.

When it comes to nuclear weapons technology - there is no splitting hair between those who supplied raw material vs those who supplied the means to process the material (in our specific case unwittingly and by guile).

An act of cheating is an act of cheating - whose sperm was transferred or whether any sperm was involved at all does not factor.

Look if it makes you feel better, Tox, then let me apologize and rephrase:

India betrayed Canada's good will and trust by subverting well-intentioned transfer/donation of Canadian technology for "illicit purposes".

Hey what do you know? In spite of that conditional apology, it does feel good. Then again, who gives a rodents tushi, if a troll apologizes or not. A troll is a troll is a troll. But, your goal post shifting is duly noted, with much amusement. However, it will be appreciated, if you can leave the goal-post where you found it first.

Also noted is that you are again rushing into another allegation, which you can’t substantiate. If you claim, India ‘cheated’ or that India used Canadian technology for ‘illicit purposes’, then you will have to prove that India had done something that was in violation of any international or bilateral agreement. Or that Canada was the innocent ‘virgin’, who had no inclination of PNEs (Peaceful Nuclear Explosion) or NEDs (Nuclear Explosive Devise), and India took advantage of Canada’s innocence.

Here is the actual agreement between India and Canada, regarding CIRUS. Nowhere, does it mention of any control over fuel, regarding reprocessing or its safeguard etc. Although it mentions that ‘the reactor and its products’ are to be used for ‘peaceful purpose’ (Article III), it doesn’t mention what those ‘peaceful purposes’ could be. The first nuclear explosion conducted by India was a PNE (Peaceful Nuclear Explosion) using a NED (Nuclear Explosive Devise). Till that time, US and USSR, had already conducted several (14 by US and 17 by USSR) so called PNEs using NEDs, creating precedence that nuclear explosion could be conducted for peaceful purposes like enhanced mining capabilities, study of effects on mineral resources etc. India simply followed the high priests of venerated ‘Temple of Nuclear Armament’ and had given the exact same reasons, viz. enhanced mining, ‘stimulation of oil reservoirs to increase both production rate and the ultimate recovery’ etc. France and USSR had actually congratulated India for ‘advancing peaceful usage of nuclear energy’. The PNEs were not classified as ‘non-peaceful’ in the agreement which was drafted in April 1956, and although Canada had the option to alter the agreement at a later date, it didn’t do so. Which meant the PNEs were not ultra vires the Indo-Canadian agreement. In other words, there was nothing ‘illicit’ in what India did, neither was it a break of ‘promise’.

Holding India guilty for your fatherland’s incompetence in drafting a watertight legal document, is ingenious, and borderlines on rant. On the other hand, it does show, India’s competence in negotiating critical deals. In fact, the general consensus within the legal eagles in India is that, going strictly by the printed agreement, it was Canada which reneged on it’s commitment. Not India.

Once again, an "honest" defence would have been to emphasize that India had to do what it had to do.

[...]

So if it were me who was vested with the responsibility to make decisions in India back then, guess what ...

We thank the holy sh!t of Flying Spaghetti Monster that ‘you were not vested with the responsibility to make decisions in India back then’. If you had the slightest of idea of what you are implying, you wouldn’t have made that tall claim.

But if one of them turns around trying to convince me that she is the lone "virgin" while everybody else be a "h*".

That makes me feel sad.

That’s your noema. Your cognitive dissonance is not our problem. Thankfully.

Having said that, the venerated Tree Huggers' "Vennginity diagram" did bring a chuckle.

Sure it did. After all, that elusive bliss is in ignorance. Or is it piss? But surely, you do seem to have a problem understanding ‘complex geometric shapes’. We understand your exasperation for not being able to wish away that venn diagram, which, by the way, was not drawn by ‘the venerated Tree Huggers’, but by people, who, dare I say, know a tad more than you, I and every one on this forum combined.

In conclusion, your original allegation that ‘India stole its plutonium back then entirely from a Canadian reactor ’, has been defeated lock, stock, barrel and a hymen. Seems Bharat Mata continues to be ‘virgin’, for one more day. Can’t say that for Canada Pitah. Can we now?

Jai Ho

 

[sensenreason]

Forget nuclear technology. Even toilet paper cannot be produced without transfer of technology as it involves an innovation process and an inventor(s). If Pakistan created new technology and passed it onto China, its credit to them. They must have extremely competent scientists.Most of the time, most products/services are copy pasted by all countries/markets and localisation occurs to ensure adaptation.

I cannot think of any product/service which hasnt been innovated in the west that we use in our daily lives or otherwise....Chinese have learnt how to reverse engineer and create cheap copies with lower labor costs. India innovates a lot to adapt tech to local environment which is different from the west....

So surely Nuke tech was copied from whoever created the first nuke by the others. The question is about 'degree' of adaptation and ability to 'add' elements and fix bugs/breakdowns...

 

[MarkTheTruth]

give me one good reason for why should we not consider the suplly of nuclear technology to India by america as an act of nuclear proliferation?

 

[Khajur]

So much for them vouching for your "nuclear chastity".

Now we can discuss the real reasons why the "Chakra" had no intersection on your "Vennginity Diagram". Every intersection - one way or another - represented an act of "willful" transference of nuclear technology - in the days before the NPT regime was widely acceded to. Even in the case of USA-->USSR transference, one can claim a "willful act" or acts by some US citizens, albeit without the approval of US government.

The acts may have been wrong - but there were at least some elements of consent involved in each "intersection" - or transaction if you will.

But for India, whereby the transfer of nuclear knowledge, engineering prowess, and production acumen were done by ruse, duplicity, and entirely without consent. That's why you will not see Canada, the unwitting cuckolder in this case - on your "Vennginity Diagram" - for Canada could not be held responsible in any meaningful sense.



Now, I'd be among the first to acknowledge that India had to do whatever it took to defend its vital NATIONAL interest. It would be nice, however, for Indians to say "well we did what we had to do at the time and thanks Canada even though we understand why you might be peeved". Should the Chakra of fortune turns one day and you need our help, we'll remember that ...

But no - the gratitude Canada gets instead is summed up as: "well, hehe, it's non-binding so screw you" ... Well, I suppose since no "vows" are "binding" to the Bharat-does-no-wrong crowd, we'll only know at the time of "Sati pyre" what's real and what's words.

I would also be among the first to cheer - if one day a South Asian scientist, or scientists - make major breakthroughs in nuclear science that benefit the whole mankind. But we will suffer none of this "holier-than-thou" attitude.

Finally - once again, just because Canada is not on your "Vennginity diagram" since Canada doesn't want anything to do with it, and least of all condone your waving a "chastity certificate" in front while cuckolding in the back, let me break the news to you again: there are no innocent "virgins" in the Temple of Nuclear Armament.

And if anything, some who claim "peaceful explosions" (akin to"non-sexual" intercourse ) were the biggest *** in that unholy league ...

First off all ,The chakra(circle)represents only those states with a weapon program.Canada didnt appear in the chakras(circle) as it never had declared/nondeclared weapon program.


But had the criteria been that of providing reactors could be considered as a support to the nuke program,then USA had also provided india a nuclear reactor in Tarapur,so in that sense india would've appeared connceted with the USA ,but thats not the criteria,hence india appears as stand alone circle.

secondly,Its untrue to assume that venny represents as u claim "represented an act of "willful" transference of nuclear technology - in the days before the NPT regime was widely acceded" as that would belie the fact of clandestine nuclear ties between china and pakistan post NPT......rather as it notes in the original article very clearly that the suggest joints are based on "Transfer of information from nuclear weapon states to non-nuclear weapon states that would assist the latter "in any way" to acquire nuclear explosive devices is prohibited under Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Another interesting point is while US and USSR are shown connected though, neither USA nor USSR had no recored history nuclear trade of of either equipment or technology.The logic behind the connection in the diagram is the allegation of USSR stealing US nuke tech cladestinely...and as u see even here, india find itself in no such controversy when it comes to nuke program and hence figure as a lone circle in that venn diagram.


Every other country including Libiya has a nuclear Reactor for research purposes,does that provides any tangential benefit about the technicla knowhow of making nukes??
No,thats why there never has been any restriction on importing reactors for peaceful purposes on any states including the rouge ones like Iran or North Korea.

There is no deny ,Canada provied us the Reactor ,but the technolgy is to produce weapon grade plutonum out of the spent fuel and in turn to make nukes is our own ,thats why india appear as disconnected circle in the venny.

 

[oceanx]

Self-delete ...

 

[toxic_pus]

^^ Ethics dictate that since the original post was deleted, the response to it should also be deleted.

So here you go. Deleted the response.

However, as a reason behind your deletion you have cited 'Why offend anyone?'. Let me assure you that you have offended no one. On the other hand, you have provided plenty of unadulterated entertainment.