India's Nuclear Agreement

[nitesh]

thermo nuclear and highly enriched uranium.. Care to explain the co relation?

 

[Kumar]

Some of our Indian friends seem to think, that just because they can enrich uranium to 30 percent, they can somehow wage a magic wand, and the 30 percent transforms into plus 90 percent. I'm sorry to inform you, but this is not how uranium enrichment works. The jump from 30 to 90 percent is in itself a technological break through, as the Iranians have themselves found out, as they still have not been able to reach that threshold.

A poster above claimed that India does not need highly enriched uranium, as it is only going to use them for nuclear submarines. This is ok, if you are going to operate as a south asian power, because nuclear submarines with 30 percent enriched uranium need constant refuelling. USA's current submarines all use highly enriched above 90 percent, uranium, which is why they have a much longer operational time than the Russian equivilants.

But what will you do with the thermo nuclear issue? This deal with the NSG does not solve the problems inidan scientists have had trying to get uranium highly enriched, meaning you will still lag behind in the thermo nuclear weapon race.

I think india tested its thermo nuclear weapon last time as part of sakthi.

 

[Goodperson]

But what will you do with the thermo nuclear issue? This deal with the NSG does not solve the problems inidan scientists have had trying to get uranium highly enriched, meaning you will still lag behind in the thermo nuclear weapon race.

India-US just concluded civilian nuclear deal, If Pakistan has high enrichment technology then its good for them.

 

[Black Stone]

I have heard that there is domestic disagreements within India about this US-India nuke deal.

I want to ask the Indian members here of what they think about this deal. Do you think it is a good deal for India or a bad one? or mixed feelings?

 

[Goodperson]

I have heard that there is domestic disagreements within India about this US-India nuke deal.

I want to ask the Indian members here of what they think about this deal. Do you think it is a good deal for India or a bad one? or mixed feelings?

Gooddeal no doubt, BJP is opposed just because of Political reasons infact they first initiated the deal.

The real opposer's are the Communists who are dead against the deal.

 

[Marshal]

Some of our Indian friends seem to think, that just because they can enrich uranium to 30 percent, they can somehow wage a magic wand, and the 30 percent transforms into plus 90 percent. I'm sorry to inform you, but this is not how uranium enrichment works. The jump from 30 to 90 percent is in itself a technological break through, as the Iranians have themselves found out, not having attained that threshold yet.

A poster above claimed that India does not need highly enriched uranium, as it is only going to use them for nuclear submarines. This is ok, if you are going to operate as a south asian power, because nuclear submarines with 30 percent enriched uranium need constant refuelling. USA's current submarines all use highly enriched above 90 percent, uranium, which is why they have a much longer operational time than the Russian equivilants.

But what will you do with the thermo nuclear issue? This deal with the NSG does not solve the problems inidan scientists have had trying to get uranium highly enriched, meaning you will still lag behind in the thermo nuclear weapon race.

1)which Indian member told you that 30 to 90 can easily be done??? Please tell us........


2)constant refulling??? as far as I know If 30% enriched Uranium is used then you have to refuel the sub twice only in its life time(15 + 15 if you consider 30 years of life). and If you are using high enriched uranium then sub wont have to refuel for its life time (25-30 years).

3)As I told yo our path is differnt from pakistan ........ we are using weapon grade plutonium (Pu239) instead of highly enriched uranium in core of the hydrogen bomb which is produced by the two special reactors cyrus and Druva.....

I have also written in my post that there is only one known Uranium enrichment plant in India that means we dont know If any other secret plant exist or not.

 

[jeypore]

I have heard that there is domestic disagreements within India about this US-India nuke deal.

I want to ask the Indian members here of what they think about this deal. Do you think it is a good deal for India or a bad one? or mixed feelings?

It is a good deal for India as well as for America. For America it creates 200,000-300,000 jobs, and for India it gets badly needed energy.

 

[Marshal]

Neo what confuses me is India still mines 6 times of Uranium than Pakistan as per Uranium Mining

Nothing to confuse about it sir.....
Its because most of our uranium are used in the exparimental reactors and civillian reactors to produce electricity and this reactors does not produce any weapon grade material, most of the spent fuel produce in the form of Pu240 and it is reprocessed to use it again as fuel as Pu 240 is not suitable for weaponisation.........on the other hand most of the uranium in pakistan is used for the weapon program......... we have only two dedicated reactor to produce weapon grade material (90% enriched plutonium Pu239) cyrus and dhruva.... Pakistan has as many as five dedicated Uranium enrichment plant where uranium is enriched to 90% which is weapon grade uranium.

 

[nitesh]

Publication | Indian Publication News | Indian Publication Aggregator | Regional Publication News | Leading Publications India

Posted: Oct 03, 2008 at 0212 hrs IST

With the US Congress ratifying the 123 Agreement on Indo-US civilian nuclear co-operation on Wednesday, the UPA government is modifying its integrated energy policy (IEP) to factor in the changes in India’s nuclear status. Drafted two years ago and cleared by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the eve of his recent visit to New York and France, the IEP will now be amended to specify the country’s need to acquire uranium assets overseas as well as create buffer stocks of the fissile element.

The IEP, which envisions acquiring oil and gas assets abroad to reduce the country’s dependence on imports, will also include uranium assets. “We will certainly mention acquiring uranium assets abroad, like all other energy assets,” said Kirit Parikh, member (energy) in the Planning Commission. At the full plan panel meeting on September 20, where the Singh cleared the IEP, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar also suggested exploring the possibility of acquiring uranium assets overseas.

The draft IEP had suggested a three-stage process, which includes extensive use of uranium, tapping India’s vast thorium resources and becoming energy independent beyond 2050. With limited domestic uranium deposits, the IEP suggested imports to ensure 10,000 mw of power generation in Phase-I of the nuclear energy programme, should NSG restrictions be lifted.

The IEP will also call for creating buffer stocks of uranium, just like other imported energy sources. “Like we say that India should worry about having a buffer stock of oil, we need to add the need to create a buffer stock of uranium,” Parikh said.

The Centre is also considering opening up the nuclear energy sector to private players. “We should really open it up for private sector participation. The exact mechanism has to be worked out. But unless we have private sector participation, the full benefits of the nuclear deal will not accrue to us,” Parikh said.

“We permit 100% FDI in the power sector. So, maybe we can do it in nuclear power, too. I think we will relax the conditions that restrict nuclear energy projects to the public sector,” Parikh said, indicating that the prospect of India allowing 100% FDI in the nuclear energy sector cannot be ruled out.

The modalities for allowing private players to enter the business still need to be thrashed out, but there are some clear options. “Private sector nuclear plants can be set up if we use tariff-based bidding procedures or the public-private participation route. Nuclear Power Corporation of India could also own the plant, but contract private players to set them up on a build-operate-transfer basis. These things are conceivable and can be worked out,” he said.

“The nuclear deal opens up different possibilities. But in the foreseeable future, the contribution that nuclear energy will make depends on how much we are able to import. In any case, it will be of modest proportions compared to our total needs,” Parikh pointed out.

Parikh, who is in charge of giving final touches to the IEP, said apart from changes to include nuclear energy in India’s energy basket, a few minor modifications are needed to stress the “emphasis and nuances” of the policy. The final version of the policy is expected to be placed before the Cabinet by the end of October.

The US Congress stamp of approval to the controversial Indo-US nuclear deal came on Wednesday after the Senate overwhelmingly approved the 123 Agreement with bipartisan support, rejecting killer amendments moved by two Democratic senators and paving the way for the implementation of the historic initiative between the two countries.

The Bill, which has already been cleared by the House of Representatives, will now head to the White House, with President Bush signing it into law. The Indo-US agreement on nuclear commerce will then be ready for initialling by external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee and US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice when she arrives in New Delhi on her rescheduled trip on Saturday.

 

[Neo]

India’s regional role ‘very important’: US​

* Controversial Indo-US nuclear deal sails through Senate, only awaits Bush’s signature
* State Department says similar deal with Pakistan not being considered ‘at this time’​

WASHINGTON: India is going to play a very important role, along with a number of other countries in the South Asia region, whether it is politics or economics or energy, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Thursday.

In what many see as the departing Bush administration’s fatal strike at the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, the controversial US-India nuclear co-operation agreement found easy passage through Senate on Wednesday night and now only awaits President Bush’s signatures.

The Senate passed the bill, which had already been overwhelmingly approved by the House with a comfortable majority of 86 for and 13 against. US companies will now be free to sell nuclear equipment and technology to India. The new law does not prevent India from carrying out a nuclear test but the legislation’s supporters claim that the moment India carry out a test, the US axe will come down. Others are not so sure.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement that she applauds the congressional approval, which would not have been possible without strong support and close co-operation from Congress over the past three years.

“The US-India 123 Agreement reflects the transformation of our relations and a recognition of India’s emergence... The agreement bolsters our partnership with the world’s largest democracy and a growing economic power, and will provide economic and job opportunities for our economy. The initiative will help India’s population of more than one billion to meet its rapidly increasing energy needs in an environmentally responsible way while reducing the growth of carbon emissions.” She also claimed that the deal will “enhance our global non-proliferation efforts” as it “reflects a common commitment to share both the benefits of the international system and also the burdens and responsibilities of maintaining, strengthening, and defending it.”

Unique case: Asked if there is any prospect of a nuclear deal similar to that with India being concluded with Pakistan, McCormack replied, “At the moment, I’m not aware of a contemplation of a similar such deal at this time with Pakistan.” He said that while some other countries may seek similar deals, the India case “we believed was unique in the respect of a long history of Indian behaviour that was there for all to see.” He said in the most recent meeting with Rice, the Pakistani side had not brought up the subject.

He also confirmed that Rice would travel to India and Kazakhstan from October 3 to 5. In India, she will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, opposition leader LK Advani, and other Indian leaders. They will discuss a wide range of issues, including the US-India nuclear deal, trade, counterterrorism, human rights, religious freedom, and education.

Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Centre and one of the principal foes of the nuclear deal, said it is a bad idea to tilt the playing field in the direction of renewed nuclear testing, especially when making the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) accomplices to this act. India has tested a hydrogen bomb design only once. If India tests again to develop more compact nuclear weapons, Pakistan will almost surely follow suit. China, India and Pakistan will find more reason to ramp up their nuclear forces. Bringing India into the mainstream of nuclear non-proliferation is essential.

Krepon said, “The Bush administration has bent these fundamental principles out of shape in lobbying the IAEA and the NSG to change the rules on India’s behalf. There is no mention of the word ‘perpetuity’ for safeguards in India, and New Delhi has consistently asserted that safeguards would be lifted if there are disruptions in foreign fuel supplies at power plants.”

 

[Neo]

Rice set for India nuclear talks ​

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is heading to India for talks on a civil nuclear co-operation deal.

The US Senate approved the deal on Wednesday, ending a three-decade ban on nuclear trade with Delhi.

But Ms Rice said there were "a lot of administrative details" to be sorted out before it could be signed.

India says the deal is vital to meet civilian energy demands, but critics say it undermines efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons.

Speaking on her way to Delhi, Ms Rice said it was not certain whether she would sign the deal on her visit.

But she said she wanted to "draw a line under this one way or another" and move on to other efforts to build a relationship which had made "extraordinary progress" and had "a firm foundation to reach its full potential".

She said the agreement "removes for India a barrier to full integration on a whole range of technologies".

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said the deal will help India to liberate itself from "the constraints of technology denial of 34 years".

The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the Bush administration has lobbied hard in Congress to get the deal approved but that wary lawmakers insisted on certain amendments, which may upset the Indians.

Treaty 'undermined'

Mr Singh has had a rough ride over the agreement in India from critics who say it will bring the country's foreign policy too much under US influence.

The deal, which has been approved by the UN's nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency, gives India access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel in return for inspections of its civilian, but not military, nuclear facilities.

NUCLEAR POWER IN INDIA
India has 14 reactors in commercial operation and nine under construction
Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's electricity
By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of the country's electricity
India has limited coal and uranium reserves
Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's total - are expected to fuel its nuclear power programme long-term
Source: Uranium Information Center

What fallout from nuclear deal?

It ends a boycott imposed by nuclear supplier states because India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says the deal is the best of a bad situation for some, including the IAEA, as it will subject India to a more substantial inspection regime than at present.

But critics say it undermines the NPT because it effectively acknowledges that India has nuclear weapons while not being a signatory to the treaty.

They argue it sets a bad example for countries like Iran and will spark off a nuclear arms race in Asia.

The Bush administration has made the deal one of its key foreign policy achievements and hopes the agreement will bolster ties with India which were cooled during the Cold War, says our correspondent in Washington.

America has restricted nuclear co-operation with India since 1974, after it tested a nuclear weapon.

The US state department said Ms Rice will meet various Indian leaders during her brief visit, including Mr Singh and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, before travelling to Kazakhstan.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

India can enforce no smoke, but there’s a dangerous chance of fire

REALPOLITIK - Trevor Royle

AS ANY VISITOR TO INDIA KNOWS ONLY TOO WELL, it's a land of startling contrasts in which all the senses are assailed, usually in unison. So no-one should be surprised that in the week that India outlawed smoking in public, it also entered into a deal with the US to permit the import of nuclear technology. Which will cause the bigger conflagration is a moot point. There are more than 120 million smokers in India, and it's difficult to imagine the enforcement of a policy that will entice them away from their bidis, those wicked little hand-rolled numbers that masquerade as cigarettes beneath curled fingers. Not only that, for many people, smoking a bidi is as much a cultural pleasure as a physical craving. It promises to be a bumpy ride.

But perhaps not such a roller-coaster as the nuclear issue will be. It's not difficult to see why diplomats in Washington and New Delhi were ****-a-hoop about the agreement. For the US, there's an estimated $27 billion in trade up for grabs: having entered into the agreement, the Indian nuclear industry is hardly likely to buy French or Russian technology. For the Indians ,there's the satisfaction of being able to take another step down the road towards cheap nuclear power; not a bad outcome, considering that the US imposed sanctions 10 years ago after they resumed the testing of nuclear weapons.

However, nothing is ever given for nothing in such matters and this deal is no exception. India has become a de facto nuclear power, an ambition which Washington is desperate to prevent in Iran and North Korea, and one which it would prefer to curb in neighbouring Pakistan. In return for India achieving that status, President Bush will be looking for something in return. After all, during his two terms in office, his foreign policy triumphs have been few and far between. At best, the deal will cement an informal alliance in a part of the world where the US is not the best-loved nation; at worst it will alter the strategic balance by easing India out of Moscow's embrace and making it increasingly dependent on Washington.
advertisement

As ever, though, there's nasty suspicion that the US wants to favour those it considers to be allies while putting a block on those who are downright hostile to Uncle Sam. How will Iran feel? It, too, would like to create a domestic nuclear industry, and is pushing ahead regardless of US attempts to stop it. The same applies to North Korea, which has restarted its nuclear programme, arguing that the proposed inspection regime would only be accepted by a nation defeated in war. Might they not feel a tad irked that India has been given what has been denied to them?

India's nearest neighbours will also hardly greet the news with acclaim. China shares a labyrinthine land frontier with India, it is an important regional economic competitor, and it has its own ambitions to be a world power. For similar reasons Pakistan will also be unhappy with the outcome. Rivalry with its neighbour has already led to open warfare; both countries already possess basic nuclear weapons and the weapons systems to deliver them; and now India has stolen a march by getting its hands on modern nuclear technology.

To muddy the waters further, all this has been achieved without requiring India to sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's an important point. For obvious reasons neither India nor Pakistan (nor Israel, for that matter) have put their names to this treaty, which attempts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Instead they have preferred to go down the primrose path by creating their own arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. Under the new arrangement, India will have to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Authority, but they won't be quaking in their boots about that particular condition, as their scientists can pick and choose which facilities should be given the once-over.

All in all, India has emerged from this little episode smelling of roses. Knowing full well that any formal alliance with the US would scupper its determination to pursue an unaligned foreign policy, the Indian government has done well to emphasise that it's only a strategic alliance and not a full partnership. Bully for them. As a rapidly emerging economy with the potential to achieve superpower status by mid-century, India desperately needs affordable and environmentally friendly energy supplies, and that can only come from nuclear power.

Unlike the country's smokers, it's hard to avoid the impression that India's nuclear industry is the only winner here. As for the US, Bush will just have to hope that the Indian deal will not further enrage those who are left standing outside the doors of his cosy little nuclear club.

Sunday Herald: Opinion & Debate: Opinion & Debate

 

[Goodperson]

Smoking is haram , India has banned it in public there should not be any problem.

Nuclear treaty is an achievement as per article , hope Pakistan and Bangladesh get it too.

 

[Kumar]

NDTV.com: It's final: Bush to sign the nuclear bill on October 8

It's final: Bush to sign the nuclear bill on October 8

US President George W Bush would sign the nuclear bill into law at a function at White House on Wednesday, October 8.

A select group of Indian American leaders who played a key role in the Congressional passage of this bill have received an invitation from the White House to be present on the historic occasion at 2 pm on October 8.

The signing of the US India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-Proliferation Enhancement Act would bring to culmination the process which started on July 18, 2005 when the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, during his visit to Washington issued a joint statement with Bush.

The signing of the nuclear bill would come within a week of the Congressional passage of the bill. While the House of Representatives passed the bill with a two-third majority, the Senate approved it with more than four-fifths of the vote.

A number of Indian Americans are expected to attend the historic occasion, along some of the top Congressmen and senior officials of the Bush Administration, who played a key role in making this a reality in such a quick time.

It is expected that Bush would use the occasion to thank all of them to help him achieve his major foreign policy achievement of his eight-years of presidency.

Once the bill is signed into law, India would sign the 123 agreement with the United States. India so far, it is learnt, had been reluctant to sign the agreement without Bush signing the bill into law.

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee is expected to come to Washington soon to sign the agreement with his US counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, who herself was in New Delhi a day before.

 

[Spring Onion]

What fallout from Indian nuclear deal?
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website



Under deal, US accepts Indian status as nuclear weapons state

The nuclear deal between the United States and India raises major questions about the spread of nuclear weapons as well as illustrating India's new importance as a strategic American partner.

The deal was finally agreed by the US Senate on Wednesday, having previously been given approval by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Under it, India is now able to receive supplies and technology for its growing nuclear power industry, ending a boycott imposed by nuclear supplier states (through the Nuclear Suppliers' Group) because it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

India can keep and develop its nuclear weapons programme, but has to open up certain of its nuclear power plants to IAEA inspection.


IAEA view

For some, like the IAEA, it is the best of a bad situation, in that it at least gets India under a more substantial inspection regime than it is currently is subject to and raises the prospect of more to come.

The IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said: "I believe the agreement is good for India, is good for the world, is good for non-proliferation, is good for our collective effort to move towards a world free from nuclear weapons."

However, critics argue that it has driven a wedge into the NPT because it in effect accepts that India has nuclear weapons while not being a signatory to the treaty and ends sanctions against it.

A 'disaster'

"It is a disaster for the non-proliferation regime," said Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

"The perception will be that it solidifies a double standard in favour of India. Pakistan, Iran and North Korea will use its as an excuse to carry on with their activities. Others, like Egypt for example, might in the future use this as an example for them as well.

"It will create a fear in Pakistan that India will outpace it. At the moment, they both have about 60 to 70 nuclear weapons, and are capable of making five to 10 more each year.


"This agreement will enable India to import uranium for its civilian nuclear energy plants and free up its own uranium for weapons, possibly increasing its capability by five to 10 times. India is excluding some of its nuclear plants from inspection which indicates that it wants to keep its options open.

"The Bush administration sold this as a non-proliferation benefit but oversold it and to make it so, both India and the US have to make a reality of the dormant proposed treaty to stop the production of fissile material.

"Iran meanwhile has made unexpectedly rapid progress in the enrichment of uranium. It is producing 2.5 kilos of low enriched uranium a day and could have enough to be able to produce sufficient highly enriched material for a nuclear weapon by next March, if it chose to do so." Iran says it will not do so.

Strong support
However there is strong support for the deal from the US and Indian governments. The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is paying a visit to India to mark the passage of the agreement.

It seals the new relationship between the US and India, which was marked by coolness during the Cold War.

Philip H Gordon, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at Brookings Institution in Washington, also argues in favour of the agreement and wrote: "Opponents of the deal insist that its approval would send the wrong message to other countries that are currently threatening the nuclear non-proliferation regime, such as Iran. In fact, the deal does not signal international indifference to proliferation.

"The pact shows that the international community is prepared to distinguish between countries that abide by, and are increasing co-operation with, the nuclear non-proliferation regime - like India - and those that defy it.

"In an ideal world, rejection of the nuclear deal would preserve the sanctity of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and make the world a safer place. In the world we live in, however, it would do little to prevent non-proliferation and significantly harm India, the United States, and their ability to do good things together."

Among the "good things" to be done "together" is expected to be the sale to India of US technology for nuclear power generation. Russia and France are also in line to sell India their nuclear power wares.

India certainly needs more generation capacity and a by-product of the agreement could be that global warming might be reduced if India becomes less reliant on coal for producing its electricity.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | What fallout from Indian nuclear deal?