What's new

U.S.-India Deal Said to 'Increase Nuclear Danger'

If you have the time please read through these 60 pages. Much of the data used in analysis is compiled from open sources and can be verified.


Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal


Again I take you back to the point that had this been such a benign deal, the opposition (despite massive Israeli and Indian lobbying) would not have been so significant in the US.

You know the non-proliferation lobby and the ways it works. Then there is a Pakistani lobby, X lobby and Y lobby....

There are gaps in the technology transfers which will be taken advantage of in the further development of the Indians weapons program.

Objectively speaking what exact technology are we lacking in right now wrt to the arsenal we're looking at ? We know enrichment, we know to trigger the damn thing....we know to build the thing. We're happy with what we have. We even know to build breeders and that sort of stuff. There is nothing significant we'd learn from imported reactors that we can use in building nuclear weapons. May be on the civillian side - yes.

You forget our R&D in the nuclear field was begun in the late forties itself. Many of our institutions have developed world class technologies.
 
blain....

Joey,
Where have I said that there is a link between a "warhead" and the deal?
This is what you said.

If India tests (which it will as the new technology infusion will lead to design refinement)

The issue is a simple one and an obvious one at that too. Once the floodgates of NSG open, then technology as well as equipment will start flowing in. Personnel who are working with technologies on the civilian nuclear program will go back and forth into the military program and there is no stopping of that. International observers or IAEC cannot baby sit each and every one of Indian nuclear sites. This means that potential for siphoning knowledge and material exists
The issue is not that simple other than it is misleading how your putting it up, What Technology can you explain me?
The FBR will be Indian build with IAEA safeguards, It wont be a GNEP FBR nor will be the one build by the US. So it comes down to LWR's.
We are already building Russian VVER's, arent you or the world scared 1000MW building technology flowing freely?

It is beyond by total understand how and what technology would help Indias nuke programme through this deal both technically and logically, The only and only thing this deal does to India is gets India NSG approval for more fuel = more LWR's = better market for GE et al. Infact it was always the other concern around that allowing IAEA to peek a boo in our FBR facilities would cause massive leak in IPR, the reason Brazil has crated a screen around its reprocessing facility, You need to understand Thorium research has been stopped by the world, You need to understand the dynamics and history of nuclear power to know this, India and a handful other countries has been sustaining thorium research and thus it is of our cocnern told by scientists repeatedly of IPR leak not the other way around.


Also lets not kid ourselves and others here that all India is getting is uranium. The NSG exports various materials and excess including plutonium and uranium. The bottom line is that there is not sure shot way of avoiding infusion of technology and material into the Indian weapons program. Your claim about NSA is just that....what else are they going to say, "we are anxiously waiting to siphon off technology"??
You havent explained what technology yet, I want to correct something which seems the basic formation of the paragraph, I'm asking you to explain what technology infusion? how and where?

U-233 contaminated with U-232 is not a weapons threat It is known as spiked up fuel I have said this before very shortly. So there was never any issue with any sort of Civilian deal but was issue with Reprocessing the spent fuel as it would produce highly enriched Plutonium, Even if we will recieve un-spiked up fuel you see there is no question of taking it to other reactors, you can do a bit of study on the same.

U-232 and Th-228 are highly radioactive, but neither are neutron emitters. (it would be useful if they were!) Rather, they both decay quickly along the same decay chain as thorium but far faster. One of the decay products is thallium-208 which emits a strong and penetrating gamma ray during its decay. The strong gamma emitted by Th-208 makes U-232-contaminated uranium pretty worthless for nuclear weapons, which is basically the main reason U-233 has never been used in operational nuclear weapons. The U-232 contamination disadvantages U-233 as a fuel in solid-core reactors, but has little effect on fluid-fueled reactors that don't require fuel fabrication. LWR is fluid-fuelled Reactor as the name suggests which are what we building aka VVER's and which is what China is buying from GE/Westinghouse 1000MW ones.

Now coming to why there was a cloud sorrounding Reprocessing issue,

Plutonium is classified according to the percentage of the contaminant plutonium-240 that it contains: Super grade 2-3%; Military grade less than 7%; Fuel grade 7-18%; Reactor grade 18% or more.

MANAGEMENT OF SUPER-GRADE PLUTONIUM IN SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/752902-3Tgs1l/webviewable/752902.pdf

The Department of Energy (DOE) owns some 57 MT of
spent nuclear fuel that contains approximately 260 kg of
super-grade plutonium, i.e., material comprised of at least
99% 239Pu. This fuel, from the blanket regions of two of
DOE’s demonstration and test reactors used in the liquid
metal fast reactor program, is not considered to be “self-
protecting” by any aclmowledged standard. The mass of
the spent fuel is somewhat equally divided, 22.4 MT of
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-11) blanket fiel
and 34.2 MT of Fermi-1 blanket fuel. The plutonium
distribution is however, very asymmetric with 250 kg in
the EBR-11 fuel elements and only 8 kg in the Fermi-1
fuel.

Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States

The Japanese civilian nuclear power program is producing accumulations not only of reactor-grade plutonium but also of supergrade plutonium, which would be especially suited for the miniaturization of warheads and thus for MIRV type ICBMs.

Most estimates indicate that, even utilizing reactor-grade plutonium, only four kilograms would be needed to make a relatively simple pure fission weapon with a maximum probable yield of 20 kilotons. Supergrade plutonium is especially suited for the miniaturization of warheads. Since it is a more reliable explosive than grades with less purity, involving less danger of premature detonation, the other components of the warhead could be small and light.

Hanford N Reactor

"N Reactor initially produced weapons-grade plutonium from 1964 to 1965. From 1966 to 1973 it produced nine percent fuel-grade plutonium-240 for AEC's breeder reactor program, and from 1974 until 1984 it produced 12 percent fuel-grade plutonium-240.

"Beginning in 1981 during a shortage of weapons-grade plutonium and an excess of fuel-grade plutonium, DOE began to blend fuel-grade plutonium from N reactor with super-grade plutonium (`3% PU-240) from SRS to make weapons-grade plutonium. All N-Reactor-produced fuel-grade plutonium, except for the amount supplied to and used by the Fast Flux Test Facility (an experimental reactor at Hanford) was considered excess and available for blending. The blending of fuel-grade and super-grade plutonium was performed in F Canyon at SRS. By 1990, all available fuel-grade plutonium had been blended.

The reason they (US) was hell bent on taking our whole FBR programme under safeguards and there was so much fuss regarding reprocessing, which would also cause massive IPR leaks, we were pretty much straight cut before and after the deal that FBR under civilian will be under safeguards and millitary noit, again the question arises, It was not in our pretogative but in US own prerogative to engage us, We already have what we want to.

We already can reprocess the Uranium in the required level we want to, a dedicated reprocessing plant by us is a ice in the cake which will let US by go through its law that they are not committing fuel which will buildup our plutonium, as well as what we do with mil graded FBR's is not what we will do with imported fuel.

The FBR programme was taken care of by Indias commitment to make a seperate FBR facility from where enriched plutonium wont be diverted in mililtary.


It seems like your really not versed with what is going to happen.

Indian weapons program is nowhere close to being in a state where it would not take advantage of the windfall which comes by way of this deal. So lets not be ridiculous and claim otherwise. Those who are against the deal have some very credible and factual issues with this deal.

Your free to provide the points by those who are against this deal, and show me the technological infusions et al. Actually it is the opposite thing around I'm least concerned about Indian weapons programme but more about the FBR programme and the seperation issue dealing with that. I'd like to know correctly what and how Indians weapons programme will be taking advantage of this deal.

The only thing making peoples against this deal is the problem of the peoples who cannot really take a change in US law which is going to happen through a presidents prerogative and sets of law which has been formulated to go around US law regarding the same. But then again its not in Indias prerogative, the reason I quoted kirk sorensen.

Atoms for War?
U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal
By Ashley J. Tellis

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf

India’s capacity to produce a huge nuclear arsenal is not affected by prospective U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation. A few facts underscore this conclusion clearly. India is widely acknowledged to possess reserves of 78,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). The forthcoming Carnegie study concludes that the total inventory of natural uranium required to sustain all the reactors associated with the current power program (both those operational and those under construction) and the weapons program over the entire notional lifetime of these plants runs into some 14,640-14,790 MTU—or, in other words, requirements that are well within even the most conservative valuations of India’s reasonably assured uranium reserves. If the eight reactors that India has retained outside of safeguards were to allocate 1/4 of their cores for the production of weapons-grade materials—the most realistic possibility for the technical reasons discussed at length in the forthcoming report—the total amount of natural uranium required to run these facilities for the remaining duration of their notional lives would be somewhere between 19,965-29,124 MTU. If this total is added to the entire natural uranium fuel load required to run India’s two research reactors dedicated to the production of weapons-grade plutonium over their entire life cycle—some 938-1088 MTU—the total amount of natural uranium required by India’s dedicated weapons reactors and all its unsafeguarded PHWRs does not exceed 20,903-30,212 MTU over the remaining lifetime of these facilities. Operating India’s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in this way would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135-13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023-2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal.

I'm merely quoting these sound making guys here,

Gary Milhollin now admits the potential of the PHWRs and the nature of any IAEA inspection regime in a SNW (as opposed to a NNWS)

Myth #2: India’s agreement to allow 14 of its 22 power reactors to be inspected is a “gain for nonproliferation.”

Fact: Inspecting these reactors will not limit India’s nuclear weapon production in any way. The other eight reactors, which will be barred from inspection, will make more plutonium for weapons than India will ever need. Thus, the offer to inspect the fourteen is merely symbolic. Among the eight reactors off limits to inspectors will be India’s fast breeder reactors, which will generate plutonium particularly suited to bomb-making.In addition, the inspections themselves will waste resources. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a limited number of inspectors and is already having trouble meeting its responsibilities. To send inspectors to India on a fool’s errand will mean that they won’t be going to places like Iran, where something may really be amiss. Unless the Agency’s budget is increased to meet the new burden in India, the inspections there will produce a net loss for the world’s non-proliferation effort.

Myth #3: India has made other new commitments that will help stop proliferation.

Fact: India made only one new promise under the deal, which is to adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol. The protocol allows for more extensive inspections, but is irrelevant to India because the purpose is to unmask hidden nuclear weapon activities. India, however, has a known nuclear weapon program, so there is nothing to unmask. India’s other promises were either already required or reflected existing Indian policy. India’s promise to improve its export control laws was already required by UN Security Council Resolution 1540; India’s promise to “work toward” a cut off of fissile material production for weapons was made long before the deal; India’s decision to voluntarily refrain from testing also preceded the agreement; so did India’s decision not to export enrichment or reprocessing technology.

Some part of the above is factually incorrect, I'm asking you to see the bold marks only.
 
Had the US known this perfectly well and had not doubted, the deal would not have taken so long (much resistance has been bulldozed by the Bush administration in light of short term gains here, but the fact is that there are massive misgivings outside of the administration about this). There is all the likelihood of this technology being used to start a massive arms race. I actually do not have a problem with India getting this stuff as it relieves pressure off Pakistan for doing the same. Based on the statement from NCA in Islamabad today, it seems Pakistan is well set in continual upgrades of its own program.

You should first provide what technology, how et al before reaching to conclusion with proper facts. :cheers:
 
Agnostic, The winconsin project is a joke on the links it gives, not on the dates et al, equipment being here and there et al but the overall details inside, Once I did took up a bit details on one of that links report and posted in another thread which is lost somewhere in Indian mil thread but the main topic on nuke issue in Indian mil section is sticky and locked, They lacks the level of technicality and passes on things based on sheer generalisation just like they do for Space et al (just check a recently posted on the same by cheetah) when much of them if you read biographies of real men who worked in em like Kalam et al has been proven wrong. We did diverted thing in first place, but thats different than the whole picture the website presents.

I don't necessarily believe that everything on the Wisconsin Projects website is true, however there are substantial concerns and circumstantial evidence. My reason for posting it was to counter Marathaman's argument that "only Pakistan is a proliferator". You cannot make an "open and shut case" against either country, so this habitual singling out of Pakistan for proliferation concerns is unfair. India has done its fair share, like a lot of other countries.


Proliferation if you want to define it by scientists who works there et al then the whole world is a ploriferator, read the ex-CIA's banned book, regarding nuke secrets and ploriferation, I'll get the name have to look a bit.

That was the point I was making. Individuals have managed to sneak out sensitive information from Western countries in several cases. Now we have an individual from Pakistan who, with our without the knowledge of others, has managed to do the same. Without more evidence, Pakistan cannot be accused of being a "proliferating state" any more than the other countries.
 
That was the point I was making. Individuals have managed to sneak out sensitive information from Western countries in several cases. Now we have an individual from Pakistan who, with our without the knowledge of others, has managed to do the same. Without more evidence, Pakistan cannot be accused of being a "proliferating state" any more than the other countries.

Well...obviously for some reason, the US administration trusts that India will not proliferate.
Maybe because our nuclear program is better organized and managed, thus greatly reducing the chances of an AQ Khan type proliferation network?
 
Well...obviously for some reason, the US administration trusts that India will not proliferate.
Maybe because our nuclear program is better organized and managed, thus greatly reducing the chances of an AQ Khan type proliferation network?

The reason is money. And probably the fact that the instability in Pakistan, and the expected opposition from the Israeli and other lobbies would sink the idea before it even started.

As far as the management of the nuclear program, that concern has been eliminated in the aftermath of the AQ Khan revelations. There is no "personality", such as his, left to exercise and corrupt power the way he did. But the perceptions will obviously take a long time to overcome.
 
I don't necessarily believe that everything on the Wisconsin Projects website is true, however there are substantial concerns and circumstantial evidence. My reason for posting it was to counter Marathaman's argument that "only Pakistan is a proliferator". You cannot make an "open and shut case" against either country, so this habitual singling out of Pakistan for proliferation concerns is unfair. India has done its fair share, like a lot of other countries.
Well apparently yes, singling out doesnt solve things, But as I have said Indias ploriferation record is far far better than many countries out there, exactly where in details reports such as winconsin makes some mistakes. get the CIA director Tennet's book on nuke issues. but yeah thats just one of the piece to read among many.

That was the point I was making. Individuals have managed to sneak out sensitive information from Western countries in several cases. Now we have an individual from Pakistan who, with our without the knowledge of others, has managed to do the same. Without more evidence, Pakistan cannot be accused of being a "proliferating state" any more than the other countries.

Well Yes they did but such thing actually used to happen before many treaties comes in, if today one ploriferate he has to pay higher price for that than when one ploriferated in the 60's. Obviously pakistan is not ploriferating as your saying, but on other hand it is also true on the legal or details which we lack regarding what type of ploriferation did Khan didand what he recieved in return exactly et al thus are failing to judge why only Pakistan got a bit more bad press on the same more than France or china et al.
 
The reason is money. And probably the fact that the instability in Pakistan, and the expected opposition from the Israeli and other lobbies would sink the idea before it even started.

As far as the management of the nuclear program, that concern has been eliminated in the aftermath of the AQ Khan revelations. There is no "personality", such as his, left to exercise and corrupt power the way he did. But the perceptions will obviously take a long time to overcome.

Of course the reason is money. Nuclear energy isn't popular within the US any more, you must have noticed. They are obviously looking for new markets for their reactors. The US isn't lending India a "helping hand" you know:lol:
But the only reason US is doing business with India, is because it sees India as a responsible nuclear power.
Now whether you agree with this or not is your opinion.

As far as Pakistan's nuclear program is concerned, the fact that AQ Khan managed such a network is itself proof that the Pakistani nuclear establishment was mismanaged. If you guys have reorganized since then, I don't know.
But one thing is for sure...no western country is going to sell nuclear tech to Pakistan in the near future.
 
But one thing is for sure...no western country is going to sell nuclear tech to Pakistan in the near future.

Very true. But the reason isnt AQ khan, its just a coverup story, the main reason is the west and US the most has an extreme problem with a muslim country having nuclear tech. I even read it somewere calling it an islamic bomb clearly shows how obcessed they really are, its like a nitemare for them. We can see the way west is reacting on irans nuclear issue, the country has signed all the aggrement and iranian instalions come under the inspections of IAEA yet they are not satisfied and threat them for a military strike. What treaty did india signed to get a deal like this. They couldnt and will not let anything to help a muslim countries nuclear prog whether it is for energy sector no matter what happens and for paksitan, we shouldnt be looking towards the west for this kind of deals, but china.
 
Very true. But the reason isnt AQ khan, its just a coverup story, the main reason is the west and US the most has an extreme problem with a muslim country having nuclear tech. I even read it somewere calling it an islamic bomb clearly shows how obcessed they really are, its like a nitemare for them. We can see the way west is reacting on irans nuclear issue, the country has signed all the aggrement and iranian instalions come under the inspections of IAEA yet they are not satisfied and threat them for a military strike. What treaty did india signed to get a deal like this. They couldnt and will not let anything to help a muslim countries nuclear prog whether it is for energy sector no matter what happens and for paksitan, we shouldnt be looking towards the west for this kind of deals, but china.

Er..for now I'll just ignore the AQ Khan part.

The west is against a muslim country having nuclear tech not because the US hates Muslims per se.

Its what Muslims will do with their tech.Their nightmare is completely justified. Iran is openly talking about bombing israel and bringing on the 12th Imam or some crap.
Pakistan is seen as unstable and prone to fundamentalism and dictatorship. You seriously think any sane country would give you guys nukes? I think not.:disagree:
 
Well technically it wasn't Pakistan, but a rogue individual that committed those acts. Individuals within the U.S research establishment have also been responsible for "proliferating" sensitive technology to China and Israel. Those acts by rogue individuals do not make the U.S a "proliferating regime".

Well many like me wont buy this argument that one rogue indivdual can take a C130 to NK without official knowledge. He is been made a pawn. It could only have done with the knowledge of GOP but very well understanding the delicacy of the matter GOP might have asked AQK to go ahead bypassing some usual formalities. Its been noted by many that the nodong missiles ( design and dev) was the payment recd by pakistan in return to the 'services' offered to NK.
 
And India is not obsessed? Kashmir has the largest concentration of IA troops, since its still a disputed region I'd say your side is equally obsessed!

Its ours, we can be obssesed.

You've got to be kidding me! US has provided guarantees that she will not halt supply of fuel even if India conducts nuclear tests in future! Thats the whole issue delaying the 123 agreemt!What newspapers do you read? :rolleyes:

It hasnt provided any guarantee, it just created a delay before it can stop supply by asking some congress/senate approval. Others in the NSG can continue supplying it.

But blain doesnt agree to neither...

https://defence.pk/forums/showpost.php?p=90224&postcount=37
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Er..for now I'll just ignore the AQ Khan part.

The west is against a muslim country having nuclear tech not because the US hates Muslims per se.

Its what Muslims will do with their tech.Their nightmare is completely justified. Iran is openly talking about bombing israel and bringing on the 12th Imam or some crap.
Pakistan is seen as unstable and prone to fundamentalism and dictatorship. You seriously think any sane country would give you guys nukes? I think not.:disagree:

What exactly will muslims do or for that matter pakistan has done( since she already posses nuclear)? please shed some light on that. Iran is openly talking about bombing isreal and what about the constant threat that iran has from US and isreal who even threatens to strike with a tactical nuclear if they have to without consluting the lives of innocent muslims tht will be at stake, but then again who cares muslims are like cattles what happens if some of them get killed.
Pakistan is always been seen as unstable and prone to fundamentalism but never happened but then again who cares coz after all pakistan is again a muslim country.
I personally feel its good for india as every county has the rite to get her self devolped but then again where does that rite go when we talk about a muslim county or for that matter who are u people to judge muslim countries and threat them with destruction( talking abt the west)? Do give it a thought.
 
What exactly will muslims do or for that matter pakistan has done( since she already posses nuclear)? please shed some light on that. Iran is openly talking about bombing isreal and what about the constant threat that iran has from US and isreal who even threatens to strike with a tactical nuclear if they have to without consluting the lives of innocent muslims tht will be at stake, but then again who cares muslims are like cattles what happens if some of them get killed.
Pakistan is always been seen as unstable and prone to fundamentalism but never happened but then again who cares coz after all pakistan is again a muslim country.
I personally feel its good for india as every county has the rite to get her self devolped but then again where does that rite go when we talk about a muslim county or for that matter who are u people to judge muslim countries and threat them with destruction( talking abt the west)? Do give it a thought.

Er..the US threat to Iran is because of Iran's fascist fundamentalist policies and leaders, dreams of global jihad, open support to terrorists and open hostility towards Israel. NOT the other way around.

Lets get real. Giving nukes to Iran will spell doom. Remember...Iran is headed by a fundamentalist nutjob who believes that the 12th Imam will bring the end of the world and a global caliphate.

Israel isn't threatening to go nuclear on Iran. Of course, if Iran nukes Israel, then Israel will respond....(Not that Israel is an angel of course....they have been doing some dirty stuff in Palestine..but they haven't threatened to blow up the world so far)

Pakistan of course is moderate, since its culturally much more open than middle east....

Another thing....Iran and Saudi have accomplished nothing. They just happened to have a fuckload of oil at the right time. Because of this imbalance, they are running an outdated medieval governing system in the modern world and still managing to get rich. Without oil, these countries would have been no better than any other African or South Asian country.
 
Er..the US threat to Iran is because of Iran's fascist fundamentalist policies and leaders, dreams of global jihad, open support to terrorists and open hostility towards Israel. NOT the other way around.

When did iranin leaders talked about global jihad, if i missed out something let me know. The only thing they said was to wipe out isreal and that was after reports were coming about a pre-empt strike on iranin nuclear assests. What response did 1 espected from iran? should they had welcomed it.

Lets get real. Giving nukes to Iran will spell doom. Remember...Iran is headed by a fundamentalist nutjob who believes that the 12th Imam will bring the end of the world and a global caliphate.

Is it iran or u saying it?

Israel isn't threatening to go nuclear on Iran. Of course, if Iran nukes Israel, then Israel will respond....(Not that Israel is an angel of course....they have been doing some dirty stuff in Palestine..but they haven't threatened to blow up the world so far).

If u read the isreal strategy, it cleary stated that in an event like this iran wouldnt keep quiet and would retliate and inorder to stop it we will threat them with nuclear, not to forget isreal in the past threaten iraq with nuclear. SOme dirty stuff you say everyday killing of innocent palestine is for you some dirty stuff and then when a palestian gets out kills an isreali, its called terrorism. wow


Another thing....Iran and Saudi have accomplished nothing. They just happened to have a fuckload of oil at the right time. Because of this imbalance, they are running an outdated medieval governing system in the modern world and still managing to get rich. Without oil, these countries would have been no better than any other African or South Asian country.

And then again as i mentioned earlier who are u ppl to judge the govenment in a particular country, the same can be said about US, Isreal to whom accept war there doesnt seem to be another option lets not forget abt wht isreal did to lebonan and and currently doing to palestine.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom