CHINA HELPED PAKISTAN BLOCK INDIA's nsg membership bid: Aziz

[Blue Marlin]

India started its nuclear program way back in 1950'. (CIRUS reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
No doubt there was collaboration with other powers but not external help like what pakistan got. Most of the items used in nuclear industry is of dual use which India took advantage of.

India did have nuclear physicists (Homi J. Bhabha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) and infrastructure established long time back for nuclear research. Its only your biased mindset with insignificant knowledge which keeps parroting that India got external help.

yeah wikipedi.......a anyone can write anything.

Thanks for that, but I m better with Indian songs or sometimes Pakistani.

good for you

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

India started its nuclear program way back in 1950'. (CIRUS reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
No doubt there was collaboration with other powers but not external help like what pakistan got. Most of the items used in nuclear industry is of dual use which India took advantage of.

India did have nuclear physicists (Homi J. Bhabha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) and infrastructure established long time back for nuclear research. Its only your biased mindset with insignificant knowledge which keeps parroting that India got external help.

Let him read China Pakistan axis first, then see what he conclude.

good for you

I m always good bro, little bit advice again always keep in mind about Supreme National Interest of your nation, instead of keeping higher moral ground.

That's help you alot.

 

[Nattmara]

And UK is same to me or even worst, who still using trident which is clear violation of MTCR & NPT.

You're not right on one point and only partially right on the other. The transfer (sale) of Trident under the Polaris Sales Agreement between the US and UK was not a violation of the MTCR because the early iteration of the MRTC did not cover transfers happening between MTCR member nations:

One of the earliest contributions of the MTCR was to set the parameter of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile as one that could carry a 500-kilogram payload to a range of 300 kilometers. Of course, here the regime erred on the side of caution as a first-generation nuclear weapon was likely to weigh closer to 1,000 kilograms. These parameters and guidelines were readily accepted by the first generation of MTCR members for two reasons. First, these restrictions did not apply to transfers within the MTCR membership, evident in the U.S. supply of Polaris and Trident ballistic missiles to the United Kingdom. Second, in the early 1980s, there was concern that nuclear-capable ballistic missiles or technology supplied by one G-7 country might be used by the recipient against another G-7 country. This worry was highlighted indirectly by Argentina 's use of French Exocet missiles to sink the British destroyer HMS Sheffield and support ship Atlantic Conveyor during the 1982 Falkland Islands War.

A transfer or sale of new Trident missiles to the UK would fall under the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the MTCR.

...

Depending on the justification given, the NPT may not have been violated either by the US sharing nuclear warheads/warhead making materials or by helping the UK develop such weapons, as an audit found in 2006:

The UK National Audit Office noted that most of the UK Trident warhead development and production expenditure was incurred in the US who would supply "certain warhead-related components". Some of the fissile materials for the UK Trident warhead were purchased from the US. There is evidence that the warhead design of the British Trident system is similar to, or even based on, the US W76 warhead fitted in some US Navy Trident missiles, with design and blast model data supplied to the UK

The 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Treaty and the NATO Nuclear Weapons Sharing Agreement both are loopholes, and controversial ones, that circumvent the NPT.

The former by pre-dating the NPT, and thus not being retroactively covered by it, and later with this argument:

At the time the treaty was being negotiated, NATO had in place secret nuclear weapons sharing agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.

Because the UK is technically leasing its Trident D5 and W76 warheads, they are functionally US property and the US came claim no transfer of custody for those weapons, until they are needed. It's the same scenario we see with US B-61s in Turkey.

@Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back anything to add?

 

[Indika]

yeah wikipedi.......a anyone can write anything.


good for you

Oh yes you want from horses mouth or what? Before you start trolling care do some simple lookup , we will be spared of your fact less rubbish one line nonsense.

Homi Jehangir Bhabha Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Homi Jehangir Bhabha
Asia Pacific Math Newsletter

PS: dont quote me again.

 

[cloud_digger]

yeah wikipedi.......a anyone can write anything.

Yeah PDF......anyone can claim knowledge and write anything

PS. Incase you did not get it, i am being entirely sarcastic at you.....

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

You're not right on one point and only partially right on the other. The transfer (sale) of Trident under the Polaris Sales Agreement between the US and UK was not a violation of the MTCR because the early iteration of the MRTC did not cover transfers happening between MTCR member nations:

One of the earliest contributions of the MTCR was to set the parameter of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile as one that could carry a 500-kilogram payload to a range of 300 kilometers. Of course, here the regime erred on the side of caution as a first-generation nuclear weapon was likely to weigh closer to 1,000 kilograms. These parameters and guidelines were readily accepted by the first generation of MTCR members for two reasons. First, these restrictions did not apply to transfers within the MTCR membership, evident in the U.S. supply of Polaris and Trident ballistic missiles to the United Kingdom. Second, in the early 1980s, there was concern that nuclear-capable ballistic missiles or technology supplied by one G-7 country might be used by the recipient against another G-7 country. This worry was highlighted indirectly by Argentina 's use of French Exocet missiles to sink the British destroyer HMS Sheffield and support ship Atlantic Conveyor during the 1982 Falkland Islands War.

A transfer or sale of new Trident missiles to the UK would fall under the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the MTCR.

Depending on the justification given, the NPT may not have been violated either. The 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Treaty and the NATO Nuclear Weapons Sharing Agreement both are loopholes, and controversial ones, that circumvent the NPT.

The former by pre-dating the NPT, and thus not being retroactively covered by it, and later with this argument:

At the time the treaty was being negotiated, NATO had in place secret nuclear weapons sharing agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.

Because the UK is technically leasing its Trident D5 and W76 warheads, they are functionally US property.

@Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back anything to add?

So as to counter narrative, India become foul way back in 1963, even when NPT was non existential?

That is the whole gist of argument, not NPT. But about your points. You are indeed right about MTCR, but about NPT there is a loophole.

And if Trident is US property, then why UK need whole Command & Control system or authorization system? Those trident should be in hand of President Barak Obama, but it is not.

 

[Blue Marlin]

You're not right on one point and only partially right on the other. The transfer (sale) of Trident under the Polaris Sales Agreement between the US and UK was not a violation of the MTCR because the early iteration of the MRTC did not cover transfers happening between MTCR member nations:

One of the earliest contributions of the MTCR was to set the parameter of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile as one that could carry a 500-kilogram payload to a range of 300 kilometers. Of course, here the regime erred on the side of caution as a first-generation nuclear weapon was likely to weigh closer to 1,000 kilograms. These parameters and guidelines were readily accepted by the first generation of MTCR members for two reasons. First, these restrictions did not apply to transfers within the MTCR membership, evident in the U.S. supply of Polaris and Trident ballistic missiles to the United Kingdom. Second, in the early 1980s, there was concern that nuclear-capable ballistic missiles or technology supplied by one G-7 country might be used by the recipient against another G-7 country. This worry was highlighted indirectly by Argentina 's use of French Exocet missiles to sink the British destroyer HMS Sheffield and support ship Atlantic Conveyor during the 1982 Falkland Islands War.

A transfer or sale of new Trident missiles to the UK would fall under the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the MTCR.

...

Depending on the justification given, the NPT may not have been violated either by the US sharing nuclear warheads/warhead making materials or by helping the UK develop such weapons, as an audit found in 2006:

The UK National Audit Office noted that most of the UK Trident warhead development and production expenditure was incurred in the US who would supply "certain warhead-related components". Some of the fissile materials for the UK Trident warhead were purchased from the US. There is evidence that the warhead design of the British Trident system is similar to, or even based on, the US W76 warhead fitted in some US Navy Trident missiles, with design and blast model data supplied to the UK

The 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Treaty and the NATO Nuclear Weapons Sharing Agreement both are loopholes, and controversial ones, that circumvent the NPT.

The former by pre-dating the NPT, and thus not being retroactively covered by it, and later with this argument:

At the time the treaty was being negotiated, NATO had in place secret nuclear weapons sharing agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.

Because the UK is technically leasing its Trident D5 and W76 warheads, they are functionally US property and the US came claim no transfer of custody for those weapons, until they are needed. It's the same scenario we see with US B-61s in Turkey.

@Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back anything to add?

you forgot the tomahawk slcm
the range of that missile is above 1500+km

.

And if Trident is US property, then why UK need whole Command & Control system or authorization system? Those trident should be in hand of President Barak Obama, but it is not.

what are you even talking about. property of the united states......... we paid for it. its our missile. dont be a sore loser
you want a picture of it........ look below

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

you forgot the tomahawk slcm
the range of that missile is above 1500+km

what are you even talking about. property of the united states......... we paid for it. its our missile. dont be a sore loser
you want a picture of it........ look below

Yeah its UK property, I never saying it is not.

If your mind unable to grasp whole argument, then its not my problem.

 

[Blue Marlin]

If your mind unable to grasp whole argument, then its not my problem.

lol, it's you who is unable to grasp whole argument.

 

[Nattmara]

And if Trident is US property, then why UK need whole Command & Control system or authorization system? Those trident should be in hand of President Barak Obama, but it is not.

Have you ever leased a car? It's the same dynamic. Functionally it's yours right? Except that it's not, it belongs to the dealership and when the lease is over, it's either re-upped, bought or returned. You do the maintenance, you use it how you'd like (like buying groceries or vacationing), but the car isn't yours.

Same with the UK's Tridents. They are leased to the UK, on a long-term lease agreement, but still leased and thus are still owned by the US, not the UK:

Following the acceleration of the U.S. Trident II D-5 programme, the existing Polaris Sales Agreement was modified in 1982 to permit the supply of the more advanced missiles. Under the agreement, the UK would lease 65 Trident II D-5 missiles from a larger pool of weapons based at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in the United States. The U.S. would maintain and support the missiles and the UK would manufacture its own submarines and warheads to go on the missiles.

The programme was projected to cost £5 billion, including the four submarines, the missiles, new facilities at Coulport and Faslane and a five per cent contribution to Trident II D-5 research and development. The option for a fifth submarine was discussed at the time but later discounted, and the number of missiles leased was later reduced from 65 to 58.

...

As for why the need their own command and control structure, that was answered in my previous post. They are owned by the US, and leased to the UK, unless the US decides to cede operational control to the UK during a time of crisis or war. Same deal with B-61s in Turkey, and why Turkey can claim to posses nuclear weapons, which many Turks on PDF will claim.

At this point the agreement would no longer be controlling and the UK would have full custody. I should think they'd like to use the missiles that have now been ceded to them yes? They have their own command structure and target list for this reason. But until control is ceded by the US, they are US missiles being leased by the UK.

So as to counter narrative, India become foul way back in 1963, even when NPT was non existential?

Counter how you want, I'm not arguing India's case, just the UK's and your claim that Trident violates both the NPT and MTCR.

If you'd like to offer India's views, I'm always willing to learn new things.

you forgot the tomahawk slcm
the range of that missile is above 1500+km

I didn't forget it, It just hadn't come up in our discussion. I'll cover it too if you'd like, and the justification for its sale.

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

lol, it's you who is unable to grasp whole argument.

Like what? Your higher moral ground?

Have you ever leased a car? It's the same dynamic. Functionally it's yours right? Except that it's not, it belongs to the dealership and when the lease is over, it's either re-upped, bought or returned. You do the maintenance, you use it how you'd like (like buying groceries or vacationing), but the car isn't yours.

Same with the UK's Tridents. They are leased to the UK, on a long-term lease agreement, but still leased and thus are still owned by the US, not the UK:

Following the acceleration of the U.S. Trident II D-5 programme, the existing Polaris Sales Agreement was modified in 1982 to permit the supply of the more advanced missiles. Under the agreement, the UK would lease 65 Trident II D-5 missiles from a larger pool of weapons based at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in the United States. The U.S. would maintain and support the missiles and the UK would manufacture its own submarines and warheads to go on the missiles.

The programme was projected to cost £5 billion, including the four submarines, the missiles, new facilities at Coulport and Faslane and a five per cent contribution to Trident II D-5 research and development. The option for a fifth submarine was discussed at the time but later discounted, and the number of missiles leased was later reduced from 65 to 58.

...

As for why the need their own command and control structure, that was answered in my previous post. They are owned by the US, and leased to the UK, unless the US decides to cede operational control to the UK during a time of crisis or war. Same deal with B-61s in Turkey, and why Turkey can claim to posses nuclear weapons, which many Turks on PDF will claim.

At this point the agreement would no longer be controlling and the UK would have full custody. I should think they'd like to use the missiles that have now been ceded to them yes? They have their own command structure and target list for this reason. But until control is ceded by the US, they are US missiles being leased by the UK.



Counter how you want, I'm not arguing India's case, just the UK's and your claim that Trident violates both the NPT and MTCR.

If you'd like to offer India's views, I'm always willing to learn new things.



I didn't forget it, It just hadn't come up in our discussion. I'll cover it too if you'd like, and the justification for its sale.

Leased never means owned or using against your foes (same as the case with NATO Sharing program), & if that is US property, then there should be US personnel that authorize launch process. But that is not the case.

Also there is a difference between Turkey & UK, Turkey don't have operational control over those missiles & nukes, US does. But on that trident there is a full control of UK.

And even if there are contradictions with NPT ( which actually exist ), US always put 1958 treaty above NPT.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

i dont understand how this works.
russia is already helping us with nuclear reactor and we are getting uranuim from canada,australia and few other countries.
what more is there to gain from such membership?

We can actually start selling reactors and spares ourselves, and its a good business.

 

[Blue Marlin]

I didn't forget it, It just hadn't come up in our discussion. I'll cover it too if you'd like, and the justification for its sale.

no its ok, i know why it's purchased, but thanks for the offer though.

 

[Ronin]

A question for Pakistani friends :

If India agreed not to block Pakistani membership in future if there was consensus among other members to
Let Pakistan join Nsg, then in that case
Will you still try to block India?
Isn't win win better than lose lose ?

 

[Bad Guy]

Now, that's going interesting.
UNSC countries don't want us because of risk their own neutralization and our dear neighbors are blocking us for their small interests.
And if we let it go on, India won't face much problems as compared to UNSC or NSG themselves.

Remember, when India wasn't a significant power, India disobeyed UNSC and they could not stop us.
NSG was also created to prevent the rise of other Indias who can challenge these coward P5 nations.
Let's imagine in next 20-25 years. And India still hasn't got the membership of UNSC and NSG etc..
Being a major force and global economic engine, India gonna be doing anything and could UNSC stop us? No.
Many countries will defy sanctions. India will itself be neutralizing them.
UNSC nations themselves will be much dependent on India.
So, let's see if they are enough intellegent to keep the value of their organizations alive or make them defunct and useless.
If not including a major force like India, then, what sort of sanity they have?
Believe me, India goes or not in UNSC and NSG, it won't harm our interests much.
@Ankit Kumar @Tyagibay @IndoCarib