tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post113783344118192799..comments2024-03-01T13:51:47.721+05:30Comments on Reality, one bite at a time: Indo-U.S. nuclear deal: Safeguards for breeder reactors a key obstacleSiddharth Varadarajanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07721228307097170092noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-1138176447103788522006-01-25T13:37:00.000+05:302006-01-25T13:37:00.000+05:30That is EXACTLY what the US is trying to establish...That is EXACTLY what the US is trying to establish and confirm (they already have an estimate, and have probably deliberately kite-flown it too).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-1138123423199708162006-01-24T22:53:00.000+05:302006-01-24T22:53:00.000+05:30Ref the last comment. I knew Dr Raja Ramanna and h...Ref the last comment. I knew Dr Raja Ramanna and he was the arcihtect of the 1974 bomb referred to as Buddha's Smile by many. This was a Professor Raja Raman and is possibly the one you referred to as he was well versed in both nuclear issues and international affairs and I learn he is a visiting professor abroad too.<BR/><BR/>In the game on 12th Jan it was wildly but generally bandied about that India has 2 to 3 tons of plutonium P 239 to make some 200 warheads of 12 kgs each. Does any one have any better estimate or can any one confirm.<BR/><BR/>Ranjit B Rai VP IMFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-1137937833341626082006-01-22T19:20:00.000+05:302006-01-22T19:20:00.000+05:30In his comment above Shri Ranjit B Rai says "nucle...In his comment above Shri Ranjit B Rai says "nuclear doyen Dr Raja Raman led the US side" in a simulation game of negotiations pertaining to the Indo-US Nuclear agreement (of July 2005), on 12th January. Although the year has not<BR/>been indicated, I take it from the context that it was on 12th January 2006.<BR/><BR/>Padma Vibhushan <I>Dr Raja Ramanna</I>, is considered by one and all to be one of India's foremost nuclear scientists. He passed away in September 2004. Would he have "taken the US side" even in a simulation exercise?<BR/><BR/>I wonder if Shri Ranjit Rai's reference is to Padmabhushan Prof. V Rajaraman, who is famous and wellknown in the Computer Science and IT fields.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-1137911194008350912006-01-22T11:56:00.000+05:302006-01-22T11:56:00.000+05:30Lets first admit India today is more confident eco...Lets first admit India today is more confident economically and militarily to negotiate on world issues that could impinge on India's most assured rise as a power in the East in the coming decades and much depends how India's political leaders play the game. With the rising tide they have the option to play the nuclear deal as a winning team or as groups, with less national interest and more political interests at heart. India's population and women power is turning out to become an asset something the astute Ray Cline former No 2 in CIA predicted a decade ago in his book. <BR/> <BR/> The US India Nuclear deal of 18 Jul is actually a part of a wide ranging joint statement and only two small paragraphs are devoted to it. First is President Bush's offer to seek agreement from Congress to ADJUST US LAWS and policies, and that US will work with friends and allies to adjust International regimes to enable full civilian muclear energy cooperation and trade with India.No where is the NSG mentioned by name by Bush but it was cleverly introduced by Dr Manmohan Singh in his last line. Bush's words add the US will CONSULT with other participants in the Generation IV International Forum with a view towards India's inclusion. On Dr Manmohan Singh's part he has been economical and shrewd with his words and rightly, ambitious. He has equated India with US with the words INDIA WOULD RECIPROCALLY AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE READY TO ASSUME THE SAME RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRACTICES AND ACQUIRE THE SAME BENEFITS AND ADVANTAGES AS OTHER LEADING COUNTRIES WITH NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, LIKE UNITED STATES. He then agreed to VOLUNTARILY separate civilian nuclar facilities, continue India's moratorium on nuclear testing, and work with US for the conclusion of a multi lateral Fissile Material Cut Treaty FMCT and cleverly assured John Kerry recently of this when he called on him. This pleased Kerry and the media went to town on it but it was just repetition. Finally it is Dr Manmohan Singh who in the last line of the joint statement agreed to India's harmonization (spelt it with the American Z not s), to adhere to the MCTR and NSG guidelines.<BR/><BR/>A close reading of these brief two paragraphs, on which the negotiations hinge would tell any novice negotiator that India is in the driving seat if the word and letter of the 18 Jul statement are to be adhered to, and extraneous issues are irrelevant. A full day 7 hour long simulation game of negotiations fashioned as Indian bureacrats would conduct them, was realistically played out on this subject in IPCS think tank under PC Chari and Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee on 12 Jan. The Indian US IAEA NSG Non Proliferators teams were drawn up with India's top most and well known retired Diplomats, Nuclear Scientists, miltary leaders and thinkers and professors from JNU, and included Prem Shankar Jha the noted columnist. Ambassador Lalit Mansingh led the Indian side and nuclear doyen Dr Raja Raman led the US side. Stephen Cohen from Brookings now in India acted as State Department. The issues that your blog has brought out inclding the FBR and India's position to stick to the letter and word came out loud and clear and it was a full day of eye opening heated discussions. The DRDOand Navy's ATV nuclear submarines, mini reactor at Kalpakam and the Ratehalli uranium enrichment plant near Mysore, Tarapur's dire need for uranium which Bush has assured and many extraneous issues like Iran's nuclear ambitions and India's strategic tie up with China on oil which irks USA, also came up and IAEA safeguards were discussed. It appears Manmohan Singh who is cautious was well advised by his NSA, Foreign Secretary and Nuclear Adviser in that order who finally crafted the agreement in the early hours of that morning in DC as reported in the media. Hence we should not be surprised by Nicholas Burns supposed reactions. It is also time US understands that just because India is a strategic partner it will be subsurvient like its NATO partners and Japan. It is also high time India declares its nuclear list for think tanks to deliberate before New York Times or such reveal it and embarass the Government.In any case it is doing rounds in Foggy Bottom and Pentagon and US Congress. <BR/><BR/>Ranjit B Rai VP Indian Maritime FoundationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-1137908897265132202006-01-22T11:18:00.000+05:302006-01-22T11:18:00.000+05:30So the "viral infection" has spread from our heavy...So the "viral infection" has spread from our heavy water reactors to fast breeder reactors too! <BR/><BR/>This should not have come as a surprise to our negotiators. As early as 21st December, 2005, Siddharth Varadarajan, in an article in The Hindu, ("U.S. non-proliferation group ups the ante with draft separation plan") had referred to a document authored by David Albright (President, Institute for Science and International Security), titled <A HREF="http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/indiannuclearfacilities.pdf" REL="nofollow">"Separating Indian Military and Civilian Nuclear Facilities"</A>. In this article, the Indian nuclear facilities are tabulated under three groups. Group-1, called ” Civil Nuclear Facilities", includes:<BR/><BR/>– Major Fuel Fabrication Plants, <BR/>– Power Reactors (PHWRs PWRs, and the as yet unborn AHWR!), <BR/>– Breeder Reactors both FBTR and the PFBR under construction,<BR/>– Reprocessing Plants,<BR/>– Enrichment Facilities,<BR/>– Research Reactors (including planned ones),<BR/>– Other Facilities including plants of Uranium Corporation located all over India, and,<BR/>– All known and unknown Heavy Water Production Plants.<BR/><BR/>David Albright says that the Group-1 facilities must all be placed under safeguards. <BR/><BR/>Proposals put up by Mr Albright were obviously too juicy for the negotiators on the US side to ignore!<BR/><BR/>Reading Siddarth Varadarajan's present article (re)triggered some thoughts in my mind:<BR/><BR/> President of the US has agreed with India's PM that India is a responsible nuclear State and both have signed a document to that effect. Then why have the intrusive foreign inspectors roaming all over our country with the power of pursuit in perpetuity? Why inspections at all which imply distrust?<BR/><BR/> India has now got into this sellout deal, overturning all previous well thought out policy decisions implemented by successive Governments over several decades, for the sake of some unnecessary and imaginary benefits, thereby letting the genie out of the bottle. <BR/><BR/> The so-called "voluntary offer", is only as voluntary as a lady agreeing to hand over her <I>mangalasutra</I> to a highway robber at gun point, while pleading with him to be satisfied with robbing her of her bangles!! She committed the mistake of taking a robber-infested short cut route; let us hope she will somehow come out of this misadventure unscathed.<BR/><BR/> While the deal so far has committed the country to a "techno-strategic" cost disproportionate to the imaginary benefits offered by the US, we have not even begun to think of the economic (monetary) cost of what we might get from the US (and NSG). Nuclear technology is not likely to be made available to us cheaply by them. Prices are bound to be padded up with "opportunity costs". Assuming they are offered at prevailing international market rates, do we have the necessary money to buy all the power plants that are projected as our need even when tied up with "Supplier's loans"? The per MWe capital cost of an India-designed and built nuclear power plant would be cheaper than an imported one built in India. The same would be true for spare parts and run-time services too.<BR/><BR/> The best way forward is to get out of this shortsighted deal and get on with indigenous development of technology. By all means make haste, but in the right directions.<BR/><BR/> Lest the previous bullets give a mistaken impression, let me add that I do realise that we have light-years to travel (but not on the short cut path the lady in the bullet above took!) before we can achieve optimum levels of independence in technological capability (including in nuclear and nuclear-conventional areas). Speedy progress has been inhibited in India mainly due to the socio-political environment obtaining at present. Technocrats, bureaucrats and 'politi-crats' would need to do some out of the box thinking on issues such as consistent funding and carrying out high-technology development, strategies for setting up projects, land acquisition rules and regulations, and issues relating to ensuring realistic, practical ways of ensuring safety, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com