India's response in case of an NSG Snub

What should India do if we are not given full NSG membership

  • Test a TN warhead and give them the bird

    Votes: 35 60.3%
  • Dont test and continue with diplomatic begging

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • Dont test and use diplomatic clout in issues like Iran to defy the P5

    Votes: 18 31.0%

  • Total voters
    58

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,055
Likes
12,442
Country flag
Olivers, thank you. I've been saying the same bloody thing for ages. That we do not need any more uranium. the world knows that but uses it as an excuse to deny us technology that will drive our economy.

However I disagree that we are dependent on ENR. Fuel separation from burnt fuel in breeders is still 10 years away and that is adequate time to figure it out ourselves. Also read about THOREX if you have not already done so. :)

Either way, excellent, well informed post.
This is a time we should stop worrying about fuel. We are going to produce more fuel than we consume in our FBR reactor. We shall have a potential to get fissile material of Hundreds of bombs every year just out of our EBR reactors only. This is a time we should start acting like a boss so that we may transform ourselves i a total boss by the time our FBR program becomes fully functional.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,055
Likes
12,442
Country flag
This is the way the math is working for me

We have 4 tonnes of reactor grade plutonium with about 300 kg's being added every year. The 4 tonnes can be used for 2 fuel cycle loads for the PFBR. However we cannot use all 100% of the 4 tonnes as there wont be any for strategic needs then. Hence 1.9 tonnes has already been taken out and loaded in the PFBR.

The PFBR design is 100GWd/t. If we use 1.9 tonnes of plutonium, there will be 4 times that as uranium to be bred. Thats 7.6 tonnes. For 500 MW at 100GWd/t each tonne of fuel burns for 200 days. So 7.6 tonnes burns for 1520 days or just over 4 years. During those 4 years we would have added 300 tonnes per year = 1.2 tonnes of reactor grade plutonium. When the new reprocessing facilities come online in two years they will produce another 300 tonnes of RGP per year so thats an additional 600 kg bringing the total to 1.8 tonnes, just barely enough for the next cycle.

You must remember that during this time the second FBR would have started construction. Accordingly we have to add reprocessing capacity. So if correctly scaled I think we may be able to stay just ahead of requirements for the next 10 years, all this while maintaining 2 tonnes of reactor grade fuel as strategic reserves. Those 10 years is the window we have to close the technology gap. Because its after this 10 year period that we push for scale. We have to have our tech ready by then.

My concern with this whole NSG drama has less to do with them not sharing tech and more to do with us not making a stand. We must expose the NSG's hypocrisy by testing and following up the tests with a press statement that says our weapons program is primarily fusion based and hence we have enough weapons grade fission material to trigger an adequate fusion arsenal. Hence the fuel we seek for our reactors are absolutely unnecessary for our strategic needs. Thats the message we must convey to the NSG.

please note that I have not factored in the upto 10 tonnes of reactor grade plutonium that could have come from our unsafeguarded reactors. All the numbers I have used above is from numbers estimated on safeguarded sites. If we do have an additional 10 tonnes of RGP from unsafeguarded reactors, it buys us much more time.
@Yusuf,

Sir look into this. How such a knowledgeable member is banned? Are we going in PDF way?
 

sasum

Atheist but not Communists.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
1,435
Likes
757
I do not think there are other nations other than china and pakistan. Pakistan is not a nation of NSG so her opposition do not count.
I admit, Israel and Pakistan are not NSG members; it was a slip :smile:..but others have opposed, including Turkey & Austria.
Reports from Vienna, where the NSG is based, said that "while a majority of the 48-member group backed India’s membership, China, along with New Zealand, Ireland, Turkey, South Africa and Austria, were opposed to India’s admission."
http://m.thehindu.com/news/internat...-nerve-with-pakistan-china/article8727847.ece
 

TheSeeker

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
201
Likes
412
NSG payback? India tries to take on China over South China Sea

India seems to want the joint statement with Vietnam, issued after Modi's visit to Hanoi in September, to serve as a template for similar documents with countries in the region. The document with Vietnam was unique because apart from the usual references to freedom of navigation and over flight, and respect for international law, it also noted "the Award issued on 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Laws of Sea (UNCLOS)".

While Singapore chose not to jointly acknowledge the Award, Japan will be an entirely different kettle of fish in how it reacts to such a proposal. In a first, Japan officially told TOI recently (as reported on October 24) that it was encouraging India to speak its mind on South China Sea disputes. Japan is growing increasingly wary of China's assertiveness in East China Sea where Beijing is challenging Japan's sovereignty over Senkaku (China calls these Diaoyu) islands

Well, it will be interesting to see what is mentioned in the joint statement.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/NSG-payback-India-tries-to-take-on-China-over-South-China-Sea/articleshow/55281239.cms
India needs close co-operation with Vietnam and Japan to keep the Dragon in it's place.
 

Kshatriya87

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
8,812
Likes
9,174
US blocks China on world trade body status

Washington’s broken WTO pledge underscores the difficulties posed by the Trump presidency to Beijing in developing economic relations

The United States has formally informed the World Trade Organization that it opposes granting China market economy status. This move, on 1 December, breaches its promise that China would automatically be granted market economy status by 2016.

According to that promise, since China joined the WTO in 2001, it should have been granted market economy status by the end of last year, the same treatment that is enjoyed by more than 160 member economies.

It has long been clear that trade and economic relations between the US and China will not develop smoothly during the presidency of Donald Trump.

This was reinforced during his recent trip to Asia, when he failed to express his support for the world trade system. On the contrary, in speech after speech, Trump denounced the WTO and the multilateral trade and investment arrangements that the US established after the Second World War to regulate conflicts among economic competitors.

The WTO is the global trading body administering the rules that govern cross-border commerce and presides over negotiations aimed at further trade liberalisation. But Trump sees the rulings of a Geneva-based group of experts as an infringement on US authority.

During his Asia trip, Trump categorically vowed to “aggressively defend American sovereignty over trade policy”, pursue an uncompromising America First agenda that requires every country to substantially reduce its trade surpluses with the US.

When the US opens up its own markets, other countries tend to do the same. If the US were to embrace protectionism, other countries would follow suit.

What is anticipated now is a US attack on the global trading system. China believes such a move will come soon
If Trump discards the WTO before he finishes bilateral trade facilitation agreements, it would be a disaster for the US internationally.

There are no bilateral free-trade agreements between the US and seven of its top 10 trade partners. When the US leaves the WTO, it will find that it is totally isolated and trapped among trade barriers and disputes that the WTO is striving to eliminate and mediate.

What is anticipated now is a US attack on the global trading system. China believes such a move will come soon.

As a prelude, on 28 November, the US Commerce Department launched anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into Chinese alloy aluminium sheet imports, the first time such investigations have been initiated by the government in decades.

There are two plausible interpretations of the US refusal to grant China market economy status.

The first is that the US wants to use it as a tool to combat Chinese companies, since not granting China the status would allow Washington to maintain high anti-dumping duties on Chinese goods, which would put the viability of some Chinese industries at risk.

The second is that the US wants to form a coalition with the European Union against China. WTO hearings of China’s “non-market economy” dispute with the EU is around the corner, and a statement of US opposition to granting China market economy status was submitted as a third-party brief in support of the EU case.

The US and the EU are obviously blind to the great reform achievements that China has made since joining the WTO. Prices and costs in China are now determined under market economy conditions.

China will negotiate a solution with the US and the EU, but given the complexity of market economy status it will be very difficult
At the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China it was decided to let the market play the decisive role in the allocation of resources.

China will negotiate a solution with the US and the EU, but given the complexity of market economy status it will be very difficult, Meanwhile, China will continue to file complaints to the WTO. Whether the WTO will respond positively and draw an objective conclusion is sure to influence its credibility.

The author is a research fellow and director of the Division of American Economic Studies at the Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.
 

Kshatriya87

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
8,812
Likes
9,174
China goes public in WTO dispute with EU and US
Reuters|
Dec 15, 2017, 10.17 PM IST

GENEVA: World Trade Organization, according to testimony published by China's Commerce Ministry in an unusual step.

China's WTO ambassador, Zhang Xiangchen, told a WTO hearing that the high-stakes legal dispute boiled down to one principle: "Agreements must be kept".

"We are deeply concerned about the systemic implications this will have for the rules-based multilateral trading system," Zhang said at the start of dispute hearings on Dec. 6.

China took the legal action against the EU because it says that, under China's 2001 WTO membership terms, it must be recognised as a "market economy" after 15 years. That means other countries have to take Chinese prices at face value.

"China believes that there can be no other plausible reading of this simple and unambiguous treaty language," Zhang said, calling the text "crystal clear".

But the United States and the EU disagree. They say Chinese goods -- especially commodities such as steel and aluminium -- are still heavily underpriced because of subsidies and state-backed oversupply, giving Chinese exporters an unfair advantage.

There was no immediate comment from the United States on the latest statement by China.

The decision on what price to use is key to assessing whether China is "dumping" goods abroad. If Washington or Brussels can show Chinese goods are being dumped, they can impose a punitive tariff on those imports.

"China joined this organization in the belief that the WTO is rule-based, non-discriminatory, and promotes free trade. However, the European Union's measures at issue defy every single one of those principles: it is rule-bending, discriminatory, and protectionist," Zhang said.

The United States joined the dispute as a third party, contending that there had been long-standing rights in the WTO and its predecessor, the GATT, to reject prices "not determined under market economy conditions", Zhang said.

"I was dumbfounded by this proposition," he said, recalling negotiations with the United States and citing U.S. legislators and former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky saying that the market economy provision would exist for 15 years.

"Now, 18 years later, the United States is...effectively suggesting that all those negotiating efforts on both sides were so much ado about nothing," he said, calling the U.S. position "a set-up".

Accepting the non-market economy label for 15 years was a heavy price for WTO membership, with more than 1,000 anti-dumping investigations against Chinese goods between 2001 and 2016, Zhang said.

"In many cases, Chinese businesses subject to such discriminatory anti-dumping duties went bankrupt, and hundreds of thousands of workers lost their jobs," he said.
 

captonjohn

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
580
Likes
276
Country flag
If China blocks India's entry into NSG then India shouldn't do anything listed on poll. India can easily turn this into trade war because trade is the weakness of China. Make policies harder for Chinese companies to survive in Indian market. Start banning Chinese products from Indian market and you'll see that this will hurt Chinese more than anything.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top