UN calls on India, Pakistan to join NPT, CTBT

[LETHALFORCE]

well bush's nuke deal with india is well thought out plan of Cap,rollback and eliminate Indian nukes...

It has elements of NPT,CTBT,FMCT all rolled into one.

 

[ajtr]

you can think of India as being an NPT member, in the Bush nuclear deal there is a document called the Hyde act some of the terms in this are tougher than terms in the NPT.

http://www.sassi.org/pdfs/The 123 Agreement and Hyde Act.pdf

http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/16/stories/2006121616171500.htm

i say hyde act is quasi NPT for separated reactors.Wasn't that obama party to hyde amendment????i think 1-2 clause were suggested by obama not sure which one....BTw i think china -pak nuke deal is way better than indo-us nuke deal.they dont 've any restrictions like hyde act and im sure those reactors will sure be out of NSG and IAEA purview...and pakistan can get all the required uranium from australia through china.India got cheated by civil nuke deal. same as it got cheated in enron (dhabol) powerplant project or in union carbide case.

 

[ajtr]

It has elements of NPT,CTBT,FMCT all rolled into one.

does all these rules apply to other nuke deals india signed with french and russians?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

i say hyde act is quasi NPT for separated reactors.Wasn't that obama party to hyde amendment????i think 1-2 clause were suggested by obama not sure which one....BTw i think china -pak nuke deal is way better than indo-us nuke deal.they dont 've any restrictions like hyde act and im sure those reactors will sure be out of NSG and IAEA purview...and pakistan can get all the required uranium from australia through china.India got cheated by civil nuke deal. same as it got cheated in enron (dhabol) powerplant project or in union carbide case.

Yeah Obama was involved in some parts of the Hyde act. If China transfers Uranium outside of guidelines by IAEA,NSG they will be in NPT violation, not that they care or Obama would be capable of doing anything about it. India is under more scrutiny if we buy from USA; we are under heavy restrictions, but our major fuel suppliers will be Kazakstan a non-NSG member and Russia who will also bend the rules if China is bending the rules, especially since they can make billions upon billions from it.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

does all these rules apply to other nuke deals india signed with french and russians?

No we have separate deals with the Russians,French and Canadians. The Russian nuclear deal was completed on paper long before the Bush nuclear deal went thru. Bush nuclear deal gave us the important NSG clearance that allowed for separate individual deals with other nations

 

[ajtr]

India would be better off by not buying the usa or canadian reactors and it will be foolish on indian govt part for insisting to pass on nuke liability bill under usa pressure with the experience of union carbide case behind it.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India would be better off by not buying the usa or canadian reactors and it will be foolish on indian govt part for insisting to pass on nuke liability bill under usa pressure with the experience of union carbide case behind it.

USA has not built reactors in almost 30 years the most advanced reactors are claimed to be japanese reactors. Russians and French have already setup shop. The nuclear deal is more or less a stepping stone until our thorium reactors are in full steam then most of our fuel supply will be indigenous. USA recently gave us a good reprocessing agreement for the spent fuel. The need of the hour is the fuel not the reactors.

 

[ajtr]

USA has not built reactors in almost 30 years the most advanced reactors are claimed to be japanese reactors. Russians and French have already setup shop. The nuclear deal is more or less a stepping stone until our thorium reactors are in full steam then most of our fuel supply will be indigenous. USA recently gave us a good reprocessing agreement for the spent fuel. The need of the hour is the fuel not the reactors.

do you mean to say that civil nuke deal is just stop-gap plan untill india's thorium based reactor get ready and after that india will be free of civil nuke deal clutches and will start testing again???

 

[LETHALFORCE]

do you mean to say that civil nuke deal is just stop-gap plan untill india's thorium based reactor get ready and after that india will be free of civil nuke deal clutches and will start testing again???

India will be more independent in fuel requirements in a about a decade, once the 4 Fast breeder reactors are up an running. The civil nuke deal is a stop gap but we will always need some uranium even for the thorium reactors. The civil nuke deal is not a bad thing, depending on our security situation we should assess if any tests are needed, the goal should not be to be to test, but to have enough fuel to grow the economy. By that time most countries maybe testing in supercomputers and maybe weapons may have even changed and the focus maybe towards more space type weapons???

 

[ajtr]

India will be more independent in fuel requirements in a about a decade, once the 4 Fast breeder reactors are up an running. The civil nuke deal is a stop gap but we will always need some uranium even for the thorium reactors. The civil nuke deal is not a bad thing, depending on our security situation we should assess if any tests are needed, the goal should not be to be to test, but to have enough fuel to grow the economy. By that time most countries maybe testing in supercomputers and maybe weapons may have even changed and the focus maybe towards more space type weapons???

if i recall coirrectly i saw in your FBR thread(i'm unable to find it now) that indian FBR is at experimental stage will it be proven in say in 10 yrs or so.more over another point struck to me in that thread that FBR will generation capacity will be around 600-700MW but on the other hand uranium based reactors we are getting from french an russians have capacity in the range of 1000-1600MW.in order to achieve the power generation capacity we will need FBR in 2:1 ratio as compared to uranium based reactors.Is it possible that FBR will be cost effective???

 

[LETHALFORCE]

if i recall coirrectly i saw in your FBR thread(i'm unable to find it now) that indian FBR is at experimental stage will it be proven in say in 10 yrs or so.more over another point struck to me in that thread that FBR will generation capacity will be around 600-700MW but on the other hand uranium based reactors we are getting from french an russians have capacity in the range of 1000-1600MW.in order to achieve the power generation capacity we will need FBR in 2:1 ratio as compared to uranium based reactors.Is it possible that FBR will be cost effective???

This is a good question , you are the first person to ask this after all the pages in my fast breeder thread.You are looking at the prototypes the real ones will be generating much more megawatts.

http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php/207-India-s-Fast-Breeder-Reactor-Program/page2
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/27reactor.htm

The technology will allow the nuclear power generation capacity to grow to around 350,000-mw, independent of any additional uranium availability.

 

[ajtr]

LF,
will the FBR be classified as civilian reactors or military???If its later then they cant use imported uranium.so will the indian uranium be enough to mix up with thorium to run them?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

LF,
will the FBR be classified as civilian reactors or military???If its later then they cant use imported uranium.so will the indian uranium be enough to mix up with thorium to run them?

All the Fast breeder reactors are on the military side. Imported uranium is only for the civilian reactors. The plan is to use our indigenous uranium for our military reactors and use imported uranium for our civilian reactors. Future reactors will be decided by the govt where they will be placed

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/India-will-decide-size-of-nuke-deterrent/57432/

New Delhi, March 3: The size of India's minimum nuclear deterrent will remain its prerogative under the landmark deal reached with the US. Hardboiled negotiations on the nuclear civilian agreement notwithstanding, New Delhi refused to engage with the US on the question of nuclear stockpile, making it clear that India alone would determine what constituted the minimum deterrent.

This means that there can neither be any cap on the number of nuclear weapons that India can hold nor any quantification of the minimum deterrent. It also means that India is a de facto, if not de jure, nuclear power. Under the deal clinched by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday, India retains the right to classify its future reactors either as civilian or military.

The US has agreed to provide uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel to India's civilian reactors that will be placed under international safeguards.

Fourteen of India's 22 nuclear reactors will be open to international inspection which will, however, not cover the fast breeder reactors (FBR) programme as insisted by the the country's nuclear establishment. Similarly, there will be no limits on the acquisition of additional facilities in civilian or military sector.

The tough negotiations between New Delhi and Washington were marked by a series of deadlocks and the deal was clinched only after the intervention by Mr Bush and Dr Singh.

The deal also contains unique elements including an assurance from a consortium of countries such as France, Russia and Britain, besides the US, on ensuring continuity of fuel supplies. India also retains its sovereign right to take remedial measures if disruption of fuel supplies occurs.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India...-terms-it-discriminatory/Article1-550837.aspx

India says no to NPT again, terms it discriminatory

Against the backdrop of the UN asking it to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India on Sunday made it clear that it can't be a party to an agreement that it regards as "discriminatory".

"Our position on NPT has been clearly articulated before. India's credentials in non-proliferation are well-known," said a government source in New Delhi.

"We have made it clear that we want complete, verifiable and universal disarmament," the source added.

India will not be party to any agreement that it regards as discriminatory, government sources stressed, while reiterating India's oft-repeated position.

At the end of the nearly month-long NPT review conference Friday, the UN has asked India, Pakistan and Israel to join the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) without further delay and pre-conditions.

Issues relating to non-proliferation are likely to be discussed in the first India-US strategic dialogue, chaired by External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Washington June 3.

India, a de facto nuclear weapons state, has consistently rejected the NPT on grounds that it divides the world into the nuclear haves and have-nots and has instead pitched for universal nuclear disarmament.

 

[ajtr]

N-proliferation has affected India's security: Menon​

In a clear reference to Pakistan, India [ Images ] on Saturday said clandestine proliferation network in the region had adversely affected its security and pitched for a new global paradigm to meet the challenge, factoring in the "real" risks of terrorists gaining access to nuclear material.
National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon also highlighted the dangers India faces by being in the vicinity of "epicentre" of global terrorism and pressed for increased global collaborative efforts to defeat the menace particularly when terror groups are "networked to an unprecedented extent".
Addressing the 9th International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Asia Security Summit -- The Shangri-La Dialogue here, he said, "security has acquired new transnational dimensions because of recent geo-political, technological and economic developments" and these have to be "dealt with differently from traditional security concerns".Elaborating on the new transnational dimensions of security, Menon identified areas like spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and climate change which need to be countered and ensuring cyber security, maritime security and outer space security.
"The world may now be at the proliferation tipping point in terms of both nuclear weapons and the militarisation of space. For India, clandestine proliferation networks in our neighbourhood have already adversely affected our security," the NSA said.He did not name Pakistan but was clearly alluding to the country whose father of nuclear programme A Q Khan is known to have run a clandestine network of nuclear proliferation."The risk of nuclear weapons or of other weapons of mass destruction falling into extremist or terrorist hands is real and must be factored into our thinking," Menon said.
"It is clear that a new non-proliferation paradigm is necessary to deal with issues of nuclear security, caused by the rise of non-state actors and their links to formal or organised structures in weak states," he said.He noted that India is the only nuclear-weapon state to announce an unequivocal no-first-use commitment and to declare that a world without nuclear weapons will enhance security.
On terrorism, Menon said it had been empowered by new technologies and in this context referred to Mumbai [ Images ] attacks. "The Indian experience of cross-border terrorism shows the complexity of what we are dealing with. The 26/11 attacks on India were planned and organised in one country, where the attackers were trained, the logistics and communication support chain extended over at least seven countries," he pointed out. Menon said terrorist groups are networked to an "unprecedented extent" and it is no longer possible to segment them by origin or ideology or targets.
"Located as we are in India beside the epicentre of global terrorism, we are acutely aware of the value of collaborative counter-terrorism efforts and of the need for more to be done," he said.He said another issue of concern was maritime security and that India would be happy to work with other littoral states and naval powers in this domain to see how the threats at sea from terrorists, pirates, proliferators and organized crimes could be addressed."The experience of working together against such transnational threats may encourage the navies concerned to higher transparency and build confidence among them," he said.
Menon said there are major issues regarding the placement of weapons in space and of weapons designed to attack space-based assets."Military uses of space based assets for intelligence, reconnaissance and communication are a reality. We are the point where rules of the road are required as soon as possible," he said.Menon said cyber security threats have reached the stage of undermining public confidence and of sowing distrust among nations.
"And yet, dealing with this challenge is largely left to effort by individual nations. If there are arms control approaches available to deal with these threats, they are yet to even be widely discussed in the international community," he said.
India felt that only collective effort could meet such common challenges.Menon also said the existing organs of power in the international system should be rebuilt to reflect today's realities."For international peace and security this would require restructuring and expanding the UN security council," he said.©

 

[Patriot]

Nuclear Disarmament versus Nuclear Revolution: Options for India

S Sasikumar

June 15, 2010

The 2010 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, elegantly called the RevCon, ended in New York on 28 May 2010. The final document agreed upon by state parties affirmed that the effective implementation of the treaty has a vital role in promoting international peace and security. Specifically on nuclear disarmament, the Conference resolved that the nuclear-weapon States (NWS) commit to accelerate concrete progress on steps leading to nuclear disarmament and ensure that NWS rapidly move towards overall reduction in the global stockpiles of all types of nuclear weapons, address the question of nuclear weapons as a part of the general nuclear disarmament process, diminish the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security concepts, doctrines and policies, lessen the danger of nuclear war including accidental use of nuclear weapons and further enhance transparency in nuclear weapons reduction initiatives. However, critics note that the 2010 RevCon generated more heat than light, and unsurprisingly failed to create tangible provisions for universal nuclear disarmament. The RevCon has also been criticised extensively for its failure to design any concrete procedures to discourage non-compliance, defection and discrimination. While the issues of Middle East Nuclear Free Zone, Russia's call on Israel to join the NPT, Iran's continued ambiguity over its nuclear weapons programme and the recent accusation of Burma's nuclear weapons aspirations continue to buffet nuclear politics, the question of elimination of nuclear weapons remains a strong and deep philosophical, theoretical and policy making industry for over half a century now. The inability of RevCon to earnestly address this problem of nuclear disarmament has conceptual reasons. This article attempts to conceptually address the problem of nuclear disarmament and suggest policy alternatives to India. All arguments on the elimination of nuclear weapons are propagandistic behaviour for deception in an anarchic international system. The article concludes by asserting the need for India's nuclear weapons strategy, not elimination.

"Nuclear weapons greatly altered the nature of statecraft; the destructiveness of nuclear weapons has created an impossibility of military victory thereby transforming the fundamental nature and sources of security in the nuclear era." This nuclear revolution, according to Robert Jervis, has altered the relationship between force and foreign policy. Understood within the tenets of nuclear revolution, nuclear weapons transformed the nature and objectives of war. This understanding is not new. However, after half a century of the existence of nuclear weapons, even though it may be hard to believe, we have learned to 'live with the bomb'. And if this continued co-existence with the bomb could be termed another revolution, it is definitely not a hopeless enterprise.

From earliest times the relationship between military innovation and conquest gave cutting-edge advantage to pursue territorial consolidation. Although such an association had differential impacts on different societies, scholars acknowledge that military innovation had a profound influence in changing the international system. States were forced to transcend their complacency in existing military technology and organisation in response to the dynamism of the world order. In other words, the vicious circle begins with the changing world order, which demands technological breakthroughs; this quest breeds innovation; and, military innovations in turn abet conquest. Nuclear weapons stalled this relationship between innovation and conquest. Unlike artilleries and sailing ships, nuclear weapons could not be used for territorial consolidation. Therefore, states which possessed nuclear weapons could not engage in conquest in response to the dynamic world order. The enormous destructiveness of nuclear weapons has precluded an all-out nuclear war and a meaningful military victory. Until now nuclear weapons are the last stake technological innovation, therefore states exercise complacency – in other words they are logically forced to "live with the bomb".

Nuclear disarmament, defined as the elimination of a nation's nuclear weapons or its capacity to manufacture them, is paradoxical to the current understanding of the revolution of nuclear weapons. When no consensus has been arrived at on the feasibility of nuclear war between nations and where no technological breakthrough beyond nuclear weapons has been contemplated, nuclear weapons would continue to dominate world politics in the originally construed revolutionary dictum. Broadly, what nuclear disarmament attempts to do is to either force states to revert to the conventional 'technology-innovation-conquest' syndrome or to accept that war has become an obsolete enterprise in world politics. Interestingly, given the strong conventional firepower that nations have capitalized for war in the 21st century, the former would lead to dreadful and devastating territorial aggrandizement than any limited nuclear strikes would offer. Sadly, security competition and war have not been purged from the international system, though peace and prevention of war have been philosophers' quest for centuries. In this sense, tabooing 'war as an obsolete enterprise' would merely be propagandistic. Even beyond these broadly conceived alternatives, questions about the post-non nuclear world order, relationship between world peace and universal disarmament, and problems of reinventing the un-invented have not been unequivocally addressed. Nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated without making nations transcend their interest in securing territory, exercising sovereignty and achieving integrity; the impact of nuclear revolution and the goal of nuclear disarmament are thus incompatible.

India has been a vocal advocate of universal nuclear disarmament since independence. As early as 1948, India called for limiting the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes; this Nehruvian idealism was offered as a pragmatic alternative for a resource deficient newly independent nation. India's nuclear weapons testing not only heralded an understanding of the nuclear revolution but also marked the beginning of the 'second nuclear age'. If the implications of the nuclear revolution cannot be divorced between the first and the second nuclear ages, then India has to strengthen its understanding of nuclear revolution and should also learn to 'live with the bomb'. The purported global peace through universal nuclear disarmament has already been achieved though the possession of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons helped to avoid superpower war; in Europe nuclear weapons brought peace, and in the South Asian theatre they have relatively influenced stability. In this context, India has to not only come out of its strait-jacket of nuclear disarmament and work towards strengthening its nuclear strategy but also disregard guilt in its statecraft. A nation's security is preserved by its prudence; therefore, in Machiavellian terms, the inhibitions of morality must have no bearing in the conduct of states. Nehruvian idealism was a pragmatic solution to an independent India but nuclear strategy is the political reality of the present world order. India can fully relish the implications of the nuclear revolution only when it untangles itself from the inhibitions of nuclear disarmament. In other words, India must not confuse 'what is' for the desire of 'what ought to be'.

World peace and universal nuclear disarmament can be interesting agenda for philosophical research. As long as great powers are largely determined on the basis of their relative military capability and as long as nuclear weapons determine a nation's power and capability, India must have no hesitation in strengthening its nuclear strategies.

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the successive RevCons, debates on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), etc., would all be symbolic aspirations to attain perfection among conflicting units. But none can offer any alternative to the nuclear revolution. India must not be an object lesson of great historical blunder by disarming its nuclear weapons when nuclear weapons and strategies are revolutionizing international relations and would continue to do so. India must learn to 'live with the bomb' and perforce a comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy.






http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/NuclearDisarmamentversusNuclearRevolutionOptionsforIndia_ssasikumar_150610