What's new

India's future in in NSG-Nuclear supplier group,held back by china rivalry

Exactly, it is all about what they can offer to help our interests.

Every time the USA wants China and Russia not to veto something, they have to give us something in return. (Syria veto was a different issue though).

It's simple enough geopolitics. And nothing in geopolitics comes for free.

Though I find it strange that only a month ago, it was all about "Destroying China for intruding into Ladakh".... and now it's "Aw... why did they block us from entering the NSG?" Isn't that a bit contradictory?

There is nothing India will loose because of Chinese blocking. Out of the P5, China is the odd man out. Let us see for how long China will block India's entry into UNSC and NSG. I guess it should not be long.
 
These ones are small fries. Just nuisance.

Won't matter when push comes to shove. They will be dragged kicking and screaming along with other holdouts.

Although these are small fries. Their stand is genuine. They want a world that is free of nukes. China is a different case. They are the one of the biggest nuke proliferators, supplying nuke tech to Pakistan and NK. Their stand is based mostly on India China rivalry that has no logical basis.
 
Although these are small fries. Their stand is genuine. They want a world that is free of nukes. China is a different case. They are the one of the biggest nuke proliferators, supplying nuke tech to Pakistan and NK. Their stand is based mostly on India China rivalry that has no logical basis.

Nope. They are all mostly enjoying a nuclear umbrella for free.

They don't have the security situation of India. If some of them act "holier than thou", it is just hypocrisy.
 
Nope. They are all mostly enjoying a nuclear umbrella for free.

They don't have the security situation of India. If some of them act "holier than thou", it is just hypocrisy.

Yes, you have a point
 
Although these are small fries. Their stand is genuine. They want a world that is free of nukes. China is a different case. They are the one of the biggest nuke proliferators, supplying nuke tech to Pakistan and NK. Their stand is based mostly on India China rivalry that has no logical basis.

Mate what do the likes of Ireland, the Netherlands and Switzerland have to be worried about? Who is going to attack them with nukes? It is all very well for those sitting in their ivory towers to dictate to others but what do they really know about the threats facing India? And do they even care?
 
If India is allowed into the NSG, does that mean that nation can just go ahead and develop nuclear weapon and after that endure some period of sanction and then wallah they would be accepted as a de facto nuclear weapon nation?

What precedence are we setting here? What would it say to countries like North Korea and Iran and all other nation?

If we accept that NSG-waiver is a framework for bringing country into peaceful use of nuclear energy with strong supervision without directly assisting their nuclear weapon capability, then why exclude Pakistan?

All of this is started by the US by creating an exception by giving India a deal.

What I think is going to happen is NSG would be sidelined(actually already more or less happened) and countries would just go ahead ignoring NSG.
 
Good move by China.

It would have been a good move had they been able to stop us from getting the NSG waiver...they tried and it didn't work. We bypassed them and got the waiver anyway. The said waiver gives us all the benefits of being a NSG member without the title. Now we just want the title..an icing on the cake..so it didn't work for them once when they tried to block it..they even enthusiastically supported an attempted roll-back of the waiver in 2011 and even that didn't work..what makes you think this will?
 
If India is allowed into the NSG, does that mean that nation can just go ahead and develop nuclear weapon and after that endure some period of sanction and then wallah they would be accepted as a de facto nuclear weapon nation?

What precedence are we setting here? What would it say to countries like North Korea and Iran and all other nation?

If we accept that NSG-waiver is a framework for bringing country into peaceful use of nuclear energy with strong supervision without directly assisting their nuclear weapon capability, then why exclude Pakistan?

All of this is started by the US by creating an exception by giving India a deal.

What I think is going to happen is NSG would be sidelined(actually already more or less happened) and countries would just go ahead ignoring NSG.

Depends. It has nothing to do with morality or right or wrong even in legal terms.

Someday Pakistan too will breach the trillion dollar mark and then countries will make a bee-line to it to try and get them a similar waiver. Well maybe given certain prevalent issues that just keep plaguing Pakistan over and over.

Other than that the NSG waiver given to us has already survived intense scrutiny and even attempted roll-backs. In all these cases China openly tried to hamper our stand..it didn't work then it won't work now. So then it is a simple matter of greasing the right palms and time.
 
Depends. It has nothing to do with morality or right or wrong even in legal terms.

Someday Pakistan too will breach the trillion dollar mark and then countries will make a bee-line to it to try and get them a similar waiver. Well maybe given certain prevalent issues that just keep plaguing Pakistan over and over.

Other than that the NSG waiver given to us has already survived intense scrutiny and even attempted roll-backs. In all these cases China openly tried to hamper our stand..it didn't work then it won't work now. So then it is a simple matter of greasing the right palms and time.
Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with morality.

What it DOES have is consequential impact on the international order and direction on the future makeup of the world.

That is why I do not think consensus would be reached. The facade would be kept and everybody do what they do.
 
It's now been 8 years since India was promised the NSG Carrot (in return for approving sanctions on Iran) and still counting...

:pop:

Its been five years since we already got the NSG waiver for agreeing to sanction Iran. The same waiver has already given us access to the tech we need..now we're aiming for formal membership which is a VERY different thing. :wave:

Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with morality.

What it DOES have is consequential impact on the international order and direction on the future makeup of the world.

That is why I do not think consensus would be reached. The facade would be kept and everybody do what they do.

We aren't really bothered that much about world orders.

See, we've already concluded individual deals with various nations such as France, Russia and Japan..Canada, Japan and Australia are pretty much the NSG ayatollahs..the hardliners and each has formally signed an agreement to supply us with what we need.

As I said..its a matter of time and greasing the right palms. Nothing else really matters.
 
Yeild is different,but design is the same..only scaled up for Strategic and scaled down for tactical..
So on what basis a weapon yeilding low by design,but involving hydrogen fusion ...isnt a hydrogen bomb?
True that the term 'hydrogen bomb' is only used for megaton range strategic weapons..
But technically a small device involving hydrogen fusion is also a hydrogen bomb'

No, design are entirely different. Infact, boosted fission can be used in the first stage of a 3 stage fusion bomb.



From the mouth of the man:
Further details about Thursday's Pakistani tests are reported in the newspaper interview, although they have not been independently confirmed. Khan said those five tests were "all boosted fission devices using uranium 235." He added that Pakistan could conduct a fusion or thermo-nuclear blast "if asked."

He said that of Pakistan's five tests on Thursday, the first was a "big bomb" which had a yield of about 30-25 kilotons. Most estimates by outsiders have been considerably lower.

"The other four were small tactical weapons of low yield. Tipped on small missiles, they can be used in the battlefield against concentrations of troops," he told the newspaper.

"None of these (five) explosions were thermo-nuclear. We are doing research and can do a fusion blast. If asked. But it depends on the circumstances, political situation and the decision of the government," he said.

CNN - Pakistan's nuclear leader says weapons possible in days - May 30, 1998


I just realized, this misconception stems from thinking that fusion releases more energy than fission. And that in fusion bombs, fission is just a stage to ignite fusion.

First is false. Fusion releases more energy per unit mass, but not per nucleon. And this is what matters.

Second is true to an extent but not entirely as thermonuclear, or hydrogen bomb is more than that. A common design employed is of three stages. A fission trigger initiates fusion. This fusion than initiates fission. It sounds similar to boosted fission, except that boosted fission is one stage, compared to three separate of fusion. Also, in fusion large quantities have to be ignited in later stages compared to boosted fission which pose high difficulty. If you want, you may read this, and then find something deeper:
That was fission. What about fusion, then? Is it even more powerful? Let us consider the most energetic and easiest to achieve fusion reaction, that of deuterium with tritium. Reacting the two heavy isotopes of hydrogen produces one neutron, one alpha particle (which is basically a helium nucleus) and 17.6 MeV of energy, of which 14.1 MeV go with the neutron and 3.52 MeV with the alpha particle. One sees immediately that, considering the energy released per reacting nucleus, fusion is actually much less energetic than fission! The balance swings back to the side of fusion, when one instead considers the amount of energy released per unit mass. Recalling that the atomic weight of the chain-reacting isotope of uranium is 235, and that of weapon-grade plutonium is 239, whereas the atomic weight of the resonant state briefly formed by the interacting nuclei of deuterium and tritium is 5v we find that the nuclear energy released per nucleonvi is four to five times higher in the fusion cases. Higher, but certainly not in the range of a thousand times higher! Furthermore, fourth-fifth of the fusion energy goes into the neutron channel in the case of D-T fusion, whereas most of the energy of a fission reaction goes into the kinetic energy of the two electrically charged daughter nuclei, which, together with the instantaneous X-rays, drive effectively the propagation of the fireball of a nuclear explosion. The escaping neutron from a deuterium-tritium fusion reaction, on the other hand, cannot directly produce heat and blast effects. This brings down the militarily directly useful energy release per nucleon of D-T fusion at precisely about the same level as that of fission, but the overall energy release per reaction, and per nucleus, is much higher in the case of fission: over 10 times in absolute terms, and some 50 times higher if one counts up only the energy released through charge particles and electromagnetic energy, the channels which can drive heat and blast effects from an explosion.

FISSION, FUSION AND STAGING | IERI
 
Back
Top Bottom