India set to join NSG

[Navnit Kundu]

@LETHALFORCE

Found even more relevant text from the agreement :

grant of an exemption for India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export-control cartel that had been formed mainly in response to India's first nuclear test in 1974. In its final shape, the deal places under permanent safeguards those nuclear facilities that India has identified as "civil" and permits broad civil nuclear cooperation, while excluding the transfer of "sensitive" equipment and technologies, including civil enrichment and reprocessing items even under IAEA safeguards.

India gets to declare which of its reactors are civil and which are military. So basically we will declare all non-US reactors as civil as the US has no authority to prove otherwise anyway. On top of that, transfer of sensitive technology from the US is also exempt from the Hyde act and 123 act.

Long story short is that the US accepted our legal status as a de facto nuclear power and decided to make an exception to deal with us commercially while we managed to secure immunity for our military assets. If you now sign the NPT on top of this then all of this is gone and we will have to surrender nukes. I haven't eaten enough Macher Jhol to recommend such a move.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

all of the newbreactors will be civilian only fast breeder reactors will be on miltary side


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LETHALFORCE]

@LETHALFORCE

Found even more relevant text from the agreement :



India gets to declare which of its reactors are civil and which are military. So basically we will declare all non-US reactors as civil as the US has no authority to prove otherwise anyway. On top of that, transfer of sensitive technology from the US is also exempt from the Hyde act and 123 act.

Long story short is that the US accepted our legal status as a de facto nuclear power and decided to make an exception to deal with us commercially while we managed to secure immunity for our military assets. If you now sign the NPT on top of this then all of this is gone and we will have to surrender nukes. I haven't eaten enough Macher Jhol to recommend such a move.

Almost all of the elements of NPT have been incorporated into the nuclear agreement
Proliferation,testing etc..,, we may sign NPT after we get into NSG imo?
India has never been a nuclear proliferator like China that this would make a difference

http://www.cfr.org/india/us-india-nuclear-deal/p9663


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zebra]

Not a single poster on the entire thread has suggested that we shouldn't be in the NSG, we are simply suggesting that we shouldn't accept the precondition that we have to accede to the NPT to be in the NSG. We should dehyphenate the NSG and NPT. We shouldn't allow the US to link NSG to NPT since the NPT is tied to the very existence of our civilization.

China was able to violate NPT because at that time, it was in American interest to let Pakistan have the nukes, so they (all the monitoring agencies) turned a blind eye, during the Cold War.

And no one is talking about "Climate Change" and its influence on future electricity generation process.

 

[Navnit Kundu]

all of the newbreactors will be civilian only fast breeder reactors will be on miltary side


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if we have a precedent of any nation having made electricity from Thorium or a nuclear bomb from Thorium, so I'm not sure this concept of 'spent fuel' has any identical bearing to Thorium reactors. Right now, 'spent fuel' is such a hot button issue only because the spent fuel is refined into Plutonium and used in weapons. Who knows how Thorium reactors work and what kind of spent fuel it generates. If, in fact, it turns out that the functioning of Thorium reactors is devoid of any such sensitive by-product, then even those reactors will be out of the scope of ANY global treaty which deals with spent fuel reprocessing restrictions.

Almost all of the elements of NPT have been incorporated into the nuclear agreement
Proliferation,testing etc..,, we may sign NPT after we get into NSG imo?

But these are not enforceable to the same extent that a multinational treaty is. These restrictions will be in effect only as long as India voluntarily continues to abide by them. That's the core difference between 123 and NPT.

This deal basically says "we will give you electricity, as long as India abides by so and so rules". Tomorrow if we decide that we are willing to forfeit the electricity, we have the option to simply ask them to shut shop and we can go back to whatever nuclear doctrine we want without a multinational outcry. You can't do that if you sign the NPT since many states are involved. Our 123 is a purely US-India deal, which allows us the loophole to simply stop co-operating, in exchange, they will stop co-operating. There might be a US-India diplomatic standoff and at the most a terror attack or a Kargil-type skirmish (since they are sore losers) but it wont go beyond that. But if you sign the NPT and then violate it, then the whole world will be at our throat, and we will be isolated. The cost will be too high.

Why the urgency to sign NPT? We should sign NPT ONLY when they amend the constitution of the NPT and recognize India as a nuclear weapons state. Otherwise we should remain non-committal by signing these temporary agreements like 123 which we can terminate from our end anytime we feel that our sovereignty is under threat. Don't link NPT with NSG. We already secured the NSG deal by giving them other favors like allowing them to operate in India, we don't owe them any more favors. We should sign NPT on its own merit, when they amend it. The west is trying to link NSG and NPT because it will help them curb our program. Our attempt must be to de-hyphenate the two and deal with each of them separately.

We don't get anything by signing NPT today. Rest assured, the US has the military capability to punish any new state which is trying to get nuclear weapons. It's not like they will wait to see whether they are an NPT member or not. So the world has been dealing with emerging threats on a de facto basis (Libya) without the NPT. India signing the NPT doesn't contribute to the world being safer in any way, it only contributes to India being weaker.

I don't know why there is so much eagerness on this forum to sign NPT. Let me tag others and see what they feel @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Razor @hit&run

 

[Ancient Indian]

Many people hear blindly follow US or Russia.

I am yet to see any posters suggesting what India should do with out losing sovereignty.
We spent enough money to get whatever muscle we have today. It can really give good bruise to anybody who messes with us.

Why they see India as weak state is beyond my understanding.

 

[Mikesingh]

Why the urgency to sign NPT? We should sign NPT ONLY when they amend the constitution of the NPT and recognize India as a nuclear weapons state.

This is automatic! India will be recognized as a nuclear weapons state immediately once the NPT is signed by us.

As of now, the treaty recognizes only five states which have conducted tests and signed the NPT, as nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. None of the others like India, Pakistan, Israel etc have been recognized as nuclear weapon states as they have not signed the NPT.

The bottom line is that the NPT is not a restrictive treaty that can prevent countries from producing nuclear weapons on their own. One can see that most clearly from Article 10 of the NPT that allows countries to leave the NPT after giving 3 months notice. So, signing the NPT is not an irreversible act that would irreversibly revoke a countries sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Navnit Kundu]

This is automatic! India will be recognized as a nuclear weapons state immediately once the NPT is signed by us.

Ya Allah!

The core phrasing of the treaty itself is discriminatory. It mandates different rules for different states based on which club you are in. Just because someone signs it doesn't make them equal to other signatories. It says that only 5 countries to have it, so when other countries sign it, it basically means "I acknowledge that only these 5 countries are allowed to have nukes, and we aren't".

Long story short, it is not automatic, it will have to be amended to say that 6 countries can have it. If that happens, then we can sign it, if not then we are basically signing on a forfeiture document. If you sign it without amendment then it will be as a non-nuclear state, and we will have to destroy our nukes as per NPT law. The same happened when we signed the Chemical Biological weapons treaty. We had to destroy the weapons.

None of the others like India, Pakistan, Israel etc have been recognized as nuclear weapon states as they have not signed the NPT.

Why is it that these countries are unable to see the obvious wisdom in signing it, as you are claiming?

Read Article 1 and 2 of NPT :

Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

We can't receive or manufacture (and, obviously can't transfer) any more nuclear weapons. US and Russia have thousands of nukes and they are self sufficient with what they have. India has ~150. If we sign NPT now, then it will restrict the production of more nukes. It will prevent us from making Thorium bomb, it will shut the option for us to nuclear arm any other nation if a desperate situation arises in the future, it restricts us from taking new weapons from other nations if the need arises.

That 3 month notice period is lollypop. How do you envision it will work out? let's say we are facing a massive build up on our border and we want to arm Vietnam to ease the pressure, then are you going to go around the world banging drums saying "we are formally announcing our departure from NPT because we wish to 'secretly' give nuclear weapons to Vietnam 3 months from now"?

NPT will also force us to put all our reactors on IAEA watchlist, even the non-US ones, which we currently don't declare. NPT has more far reaching provisions which will affect other things. The current India-US agreement is just a formal loophole which allows their companies to operate in India without offending Indian sensibilities about our weapons program. I haven't heard even an American or even a Marxist argue so strongly in favor of India signing NPT as you are.


The US is also unilaterally proliferating nukes in NATO, so they are very clear that no rule applies to them, it only applies to others. Why would anybody want to be excited to be part of such an inherently discriminatory setup?

United States-NATO nuclear weapons sharing

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. These agreements were disclosed to a few of the states, including the Soviet Union, negotiating the treaty, but most of the states that signed the NPT in 1968 would not have known about these agreements and interpretations at that time.

 

[Mikesingh]

Ya Allah!

We can't receive or manufacture (and, obviously can't transfer) any more nuclear weapons. If we sign NPT now, then it will restrict the production of more nukes. It will prevent us from making Thorium bomb, it will shut the option for us to nuclear arm any other nation if a desperate situation arises in the future, it restricts us from taking new weapons from other nations if the need arises.

Ok, so has the US as a signatory of the NPT, stopped production of their nukes even after they signed the NPT in 1970? Not by a long shot!

Since then, for example, nine versions of the nuclear gravity bomb B61 have been produced. Each shares the same "physics package", with different yield options. The newest variant is the B61 Mod 11, deployed in 1997, which is a ground-penetrating nuclear bunker buster.

As of 2013, the Pentagon was asking for an $11 billion life-extension program for the B61 bomb, which would be the most ambitious and expensive nuclear warhead refurbishment in history. The B61 Mod 12 is to replace the previous Mod 3, 4, 7, and 10 versions with 400–500 planned with a service life of 20 years.

The B61-12 can be deployed from dual-capable fighter aircraft, as well as planned to arm the F-35 and Long Range Strike Bombers.

So friend, an NPT signatory like the US of A is going ahead with the production of more a newer versions of nukes even today, but not a squeak from anyone? No one has objected and no one seems to care a shit! So why all this fuss about India not being able to produce more nukes even after signing the NPT? Who’s to stop us? Certainly not the US of A as they need India as a strategic ally to counter the Chinese who themselves are producing more nuclear weapons as seen from the new DF series of delivery systems they are producing for their spanky new nukes.

In short, even if we sign the NPT, we will continue with our nuclear program - military (covertly) as well as civilian. Who's to stop us? Burkina Faso? If the US and China can increase their nuke stockpiles with impunity in spite of being NPT signatories, so can we. Period!

 

[Navnit Kundu]

Ok, so has the US as a signatory of the NPT, stopped production of their nukes even after they signed the NPT in 1970? Not by a long shot!

That's because no one can impose anything on them.

In short, even if we sign the NPT, we will continue with our nuclear program - military (covertly) as well as civilian. Who's to stop us? Burkina Faso? If the US and China can increase their nuke stockpiles with impunity in spite of being NPT signatories, so can we. Period!

Then India can continue doing whatever it was doing anyway, with or without NPT. Can you state explicitly what exactly we get by signing the NPT that we wont have if we don't sign it?

 

[Mikesingh]

Can you state explicitly what exactly we get by signing the NPT that we wont have if we don't sign it?

We get to sit on the high table!

Similarly, some may ask why are we desperate for a permanent seat in the UNSC? It actually means squat! But we get to sit on the high table!

 

[Navnit Kundu]

We get to sit on the high table!

Similarly, some may ask why are we desperate for a permanent seat in the UNSC? It actually means squat! But we get to sit on the high table!

One can use the seat at UNSC as a seat for profit and for political and material gains, like Russia has been using. People are willing to make diplomatic and military concessions to you if you have a veto, nations are even willing to pay you money for the veto. No one is going to pay you money for being part of NPT, neither can you use that 'high seat' for any gains. On the contrary, the UNSC seat doesn't come with any restrictive obligations, so it's a win win proposition, unlike the NPT which is a lose lose proposition. Voluntarily signing NPT is like going to the supermarket and buying new problems which didn't exist earlier, for no gain.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Many people hear blindly follow US or Russia.

I am yet to see any posters suggesting what India should do with out losing sovereignty.
We spent enough money to get whatever muscle we have today. It can really give good bruise to anybody who messes with us.

Why they see India as weak state is beyond my understanding.

There is no eagerness to sign npt. I said earlier in the thread we were not ready for nuclear deal and we accepted it . This is a by product of that deal. Our nuclear weapon program was never mature enough to accept this deal. We essentially did a trade of national security for energy.

 

[Ancient Indian]

There is no eagerness to sign npt. I said earlier in the thread we were not ready for nuclear deal and we accepted it . This is a by product of that deal. Our nuclear weapon program was never mature enough to accept this deal. We essentially did a trade of national security for energy.

I rarely roam in this corner of forum. So forgive me for my ignorance.

Didn't we made a similar US -India nuclear deal with France, Canada and Australia in the first year of Modiji in office?

I thought that it will be enough to replace NSG membership.

What is the need to join to NPT? Most of you are very eager to join these groups. Why the rush anyway?

 

[Navnit Kundu]

There is no eagerness to sign npt. I said earlier in the thread we were not ready for nuclear deal and we accepted it . This is a by product of that deal. Our nuclear weapon program was never mature enough to accept this deal. We essentially did a trade of national security for energy.

No, this is not a byproduct of anything. The US wants it to be that way and you seem eager to do their bidding by claiming that the clauses of NSG seem similar to those of NPT and therefore Indian must sign it and be done with it.

As @Ancient Indian said, we have signed separate deals with Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, France and US, so supplying fuel for any reactor they build in India will be their responsibility. It is the suppliers who would be in violation of their own NPT obligations by supplying nuclear fuel to India so the NSG was created as a legal loophole to show to the world public that the deal with India doesn't undermine global non-proliferation efforts (even though it does). The whole point of our negotiations was that we wanted the world to supply fuel to us with no obligations on our part. And we have successfully managed to strike a good balance between our strategic interest and energy security without giving in to the discriminatory provisions of the NPT. The 123 deal we have signed is just a watered down version of NPT because India made it clear that we wont sign the NPT. If we sign the NPT then the negotiations will have been meaningless.

NPT is far more intrusive, NSG is just a loophole to allow India to break the international rules and still be on the good side of all major powers. Very disheartening to see that people are so willing to jump to their own deaths by signing the NPT. It would be like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[ezsasa]

What is the need to join to NPT? Most of you are very eager to join these groups. Why the rush anyway?

Idea is that the nuclear power generation is better and cost effective in long term compared to other means
Of power generation.

And the current trend of solar generation may not be cost effective more than 30 years in india, because of the increasing land cost.

 

[Navnit Kundu]

Idea is that the nuclear power generation is better and cost effective in long term compared to other means
Of power generation.

And the current trend of solar generation may not be cost effective more than 30 years in india, because of the increasing land cost.

What has that got to do with NPT? did any nation threaten to stop supply of nuclear fuel to India if we don't sign NPT? With all due respect, you have arrived late to the debate, all the things have been discussed, please go through the previous posts instead of taking the entire debate 2 page backward. NSG and NPT is not linked, NSG deal is already done without having signed NPT, and the nuclear fuel has already started coming in from various nations. We have also created a strategic reserve to store nuclear fuel, again, no supplier had any objections.

No one has given any ultimatum to us to sign NPT. Intellectual people like you are the only ones who are voluntarily coming onto forums to recommend the signing of NPT even when there is no pressure from any world power. There is no world power which has said that they will block nuclear fuel supply to us if we don't sign the NPT. The whole point of the 123 agreement we signed with the US was to get them to create precisely this exception for India. India is the only country in the world for whom the international rules were bent by NSG so we can have nuclear fuel without signing NPT. In case you didn't know, the deal is already signed.

Once you get a good bargain on a product, buy that product at full price, come home and start using that product, then do you again go to the shop the next day to give more money to the shopkeeper for no reason at all? Even the shopkeeper will think you are foolish.

@Indx TechStyle I am getting a feeling we are being trolled here. What a headache!

 

[Ancient Indian]

No, this is not a byproduct of anything. The US wants it to be that way and you seem eager to do their bidding by claiming that the clauses of NSG seem similar to those of NPT and therefore Indian must sign it and be done with it.

As @Ancient Indian said, we have signed separate deals with Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, France and US, so supplying fuel for any reactor they build in India will be their responsibility. It is the suppliers who would be in violation of their own NPT obligations by supplying nuclear fuel to India so the NSG was created as a legal loophole to show to the world public that the deal with India doesn't undermine global non-proliferation efforts (even though it does). The whole point of our negotiations was that we wanted the world to supply fuel to us with no obligations on our part. And we have successfully managed to strike a good balance between our strategic interest and energy security without giving in to the discriminatory provisions of the NPT. The 123 deal we have signed is just a watered down version of NPT because India made it clear that we wont sign the NPT. If we sign the NPT then the negotiations will have been meaningless.

NPT is far more intrusive, NSG is just a loophole to allow India to break the international rules and still be on the good side of all major powers. Very disheartening to see that people are so willing to jump to their own deaths by signing the NPT. It would be like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I was confused about various poster's stand on this matter.

May be too much spending in that garbage forum called PDF, damaged these guys'(I am excepting LETHAL) brains to this extent.

@ezsasa bro.
pardon my language. But your post is lacking.

Where the heck does power generation comes into play?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

No, this is not a byproduct of anything. The US wants it to be that way and you seem eager to do their bidding by claiming that the clauses of NSG seem similar to those of NPT and therefore Indian must sign it and be done with it.

As @Ancient Indian said, we have signed separate deals with Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, France and US, so supplying fuel for any reactor they build in India will be their responsibility. It is the suppliers who would be in violation of their own NPT obligations by supplying nuclear fuel to India so the NSG was created as a legal loophole to show to the world public that the deal with India doesn't undermine global non-proliferation efforts (even though it does). The whole point of our negotiations was that we wanted the world to supply fuel to us with no obligations on our part. And we have successfully managed to strike a good balance between our strategic interest and energy security without giving in to the discriminatory provisions of the NPT. The 123 deal we have signed is just a watered down version of NPT because India made it clear that we wont sign the NPT. If we sign the NPT then the negotiations will have been meaningless.

NPT is far more intrusive, NSG is just a loophole to allow India to break the international rules and still be on the good side of all major powers. Very disheartening to see that people are so willing to jump to their own deaths by signing the NPT. It would be like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Navneet I have never said India should sign the npt.
I have said India should never have accepted the nuclear deal at the time it was presented. The npt seems to be the leverage USA
Will use to have the nuclear deal get started along with nsg
Membership. India nuclear program started with bhabha and
The atoms for peace us program. I am not saying India should
Sign npt simply saying India wants to be in the big leagues
But is in no way prepared to be. All nuclear weapons states in npt
Except China did hundreds of nuclear weapons tests before joining
or creating Npt India has done 6.

 

[Navnit Kundu]

I was confused about various poster's stand on this matter.

May be too much spending in that garbage forum called PDF, damaged these guy's brains to this extent.

@ezsasa bro.
pardon my language. But your post is lacking.

Where the heck does power generation comes into play?

Deal toh pehle hee ho chuki hai. NPT sign kiye bina fuel bhi mil raha hai. Even then people are saying "let's go back and sign the NPT". Hasu ya royun yeh samajh nahi aa raha.


Customer : How much for one ice-cream?
Shopkeeper : 100rs
Customer : Please take 250rs. Final offer.