Japan eases fuel rules for India nuclear deal

[nForce]

If that's what you think is actually the case from your read up of wiki, then good luck.........

Do you have any other figures ?

 

[21 Dec 2012]

If that's what you think is actually the case from your read up of wiki, then good luck.........

Why would they need more?

 

[Spectre]

Do you have any other figures ?

China | Country Profiles | NTI

This is pretty credible and estimates 190 operational warheads and references include multitude of sources

[1] "中华人民共和国政府声明 [Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China]," Renmin Ribao, 16 October 1964, via: 欢迎访问新华网
[2] Specifically, "中国政府郑重宣布，中国在任何时候、任何情况下，都不会首先使用核武器." in "中华人民共和国政府声明 [Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China]," Renmin Ribao, 16 October 1964, via: http://news.xinhuanet.com; Wang Hui and Hui Chengzhuo, "中国始终恪守不首先使用核武器政策 [China Consistently Upholds the Policy of No First Use of Nuclear Weapons]," Xinhua, 31 March 2011, http://news.xinhuanet.com; Nie Rongzhen, 聂荣臻回忆录[Nie Rongzhen Memoirs] vol. 2 (Beijing: People Liberation Army Press, 1984), p. 810.
[3] Gregory Kulacki, “China’s Nuclear Arsenal: Status and Evolution,” Union of Concerned Scientists, October 2011, UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions | Union of Concerned Scientists
[4] Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, "Chinese nuclear forces, 2013,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 69, no. 6, 1 November 2013, pp. 79.
[5] "Military Spending and Armaments, Nuclear Forces: China," Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2014, Welcome to SIPRI — www.sipri.org
[6] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 6, 1 November 2011, pp. 81-85.
[7] "Nuclear Weapons - China Nuclear Forces," Federation of American Scientists, www.fas.org.
[8] U.S. Department of Defense, "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China," April 2011, United States Department of Defense (defense.gov) p. 34.
[9] U.S. Department of Defense, "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China," April 2010, p. 66, United States Department of Defense (defense.gov)
[10] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 6, 1 November 2011, pp. 81-85.
[11] Hans Kristensen, "Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China," Federation of American Scientists, 15 May 2008, www.fas.org.
[12] Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, "China's National Defense in 2010," March 2011, via: www.news.xinhuanet.com.
[13] Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces,” April 2013, China.org.cn - China news, weather, business, travel & language courses
[14] Yao Yunzhu, “China Will Not Change Its Nuclear Policy,” China US Focus, 22 April 2013, Exclusive Analysis of the Politics, Economics, Military and Culture of China-US Relations | CHINA US Focus
[15] "中华人民共和国政府声明 [Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China]," Renmin Ribao, 16 October 1964, via: 欢迎访问新华网
[16] Roger Dingman, "Atomic Diplomacy during the Korean War," International Security, vol. 13, no. 3, Winter 1988-1989, pp. 50-91.
[17] John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 13-14.
[18] David Alan Rosenberg and W. B. Moore, "'A Smoking Radiating Ruin at the End of Two Hours:' Documents on American Plans for Nuclear War with the Soviet Union, 1954-1955," International Security vol. 6, no. 3, Winter, 1981-1982, pp. 3-38.
[19] John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 32.
[20] John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 47-48; "1955-1998 年大事记 [1955-1998 Chronology]," China National Nuclear Corporation, 30 December 2006, 首　页
[21] John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 114-115; Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 6, 1 November 2011, pp. 81-87.
[22] The details of the agreement were not revealed until the Chinese government made a public statement in reply to the USSR on 15 August 1963 that "As far back as June 20, 1959...the Soviet Government unilaterally tore up the agreement on new technology for national defense concluded between China and the Soviet Union on October 15, 1957, and refused to provide China with a sample of an atomic bomb and technical data concerning its manufacture." Peking Review, no. 33, 1963, as quoted in Hungdah Chiu, "Communist China's Attitude Toward Nuclear Tests," The China Quarterly, no. 21, January-March 1965, p. 96.
[23] John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 114-115.
[24] “1967年6月17日我国第一颗氢弹试验成功 17 June 1967: China Successfully Detonates its First Hydrogen Bomb],” Renmin Ribao, 1 August 2003, 人民网
[25] Charles H. Murphy, "Mainland China's Evolving Nuclear Deterrent," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1972, pp. 29-30.
[26] John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 202-203. See photos at: "组图：中国第一次导弹核武器试验获得成功 [Photos: China's First Successful Nuclear Missile Test]," People's Network Military Channel, ed. Yang Tiehu, Photo credit: China Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, 16 September 2006, 军事--人民网
[27] Xia Fei, "三线建设：毛泽东的一个重大战略决策 [Third Line Construction: One of Mao's Important Strategic Decisions]," News of the Communist Party of China, 2008, 党史频道--人民网
[28] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 6, 1 November 2011, pp. 81-85.
[29] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 6, 1 November 2011, pp. 81-87.
[30] "中华人民共和国政府关于停止核试验的声明 [Government Statement on the Moratorium of Nuclear Tests]," Xinhua, 29 July 1996, via: 央广网·中央人民广播电台
[31] Mingquan Zhu, "The Evolution of China's Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy," The Nonproliferation Review, vol. 4, no. 2, Winter 1997, pp. 40-48.
[32] "China Joins Agency that Inspects Reactors," New York Times, 12 October 1983, p. A5, http://web.lexis-nexis.com; David Willis, "Some Progress is Seen on Containing the Spread of Nuclear Weapons," Christian Science Monitor, 25 October 1983, p. 1, via: http://web.lexis-nexis.com; "Chinese Premier's Remarks at White House Banquet," BBC Summery of World Broadcasts, 12 January 1984, Welcome to LexisNexis - Choose Your Path
[33] "必须全面禁止和彻底销毁核武器 [Must Completely Prohibit and Dismantle Nuclear Weapons]," Renmin Ribao, 13 September 1990, via: 新华网_让新闻离你更近
[34] "中国政府原则决定参加不扩散核武器条约 [The Chinese Government Decides in Principle to Join the NPT]," Renmin Ribao, 11 August 1991, via: 新华网_让新闻离你更近
[35] People's Republic of China, "Instrument of Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," 11 March 1992.
[36] Mingquan Zhu, "The Evolution of China's Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy," The Nonproliferation Review, vol. 4, no. 2, Winter 1997, pp. 40-48.
[37] Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations, "胡锦涛主席在安理会核不扩散和核裁军峰会上的讲话 [Statement by President Hu Jintao at the United Nations Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament]," 24 September 2009, Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the UN
[38] Bill Gertz, "China Nuclear Transfer Exposed: Hill Expected to Urge Sanction," The Washington Times, 5 February 1996, via: Welcome to LexisNexis - Choose Your Path
[39] Joby Warrick and Peter Slevin, "Libyan Arms Designs Traced back to China: Pakistanis Resold Chinese-Provided Plans," The Washington Post, 15 February 2004, p. A01, Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis
[40] Alistair Ian Johnston, "Prospects for Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization: Limited Deterrence versus Multilateral Arms Control," China Quarterly, June 1996, pp. 552-558.
[41] "Statement of Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, U.S. Navy Commander, U.S. Pacific Command Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on U.S. Pacific Command Posture," Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 March 2014, p.10, Home | United States Commitee on Armed Services
[42] U.S. Department of Defense, "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China," April 2013, United States Department of Defense (defense.gov)
[43] Lin Shu-yuan, "Taiwan, China to Enhance Cooperation in Nuclear Safety," Central News Agency (Taiwan), 5 April 2011.

 

[Arsalan]

Why is everyone interested in counting others nuclear warheads? it is not that after the first 7 - 8 the next ones will matter anymore?
The talks of nuking each other are best suited to public forums like this or some stupid dumb politicians. The top brass of every sane military force and government knows what means to nuke another nuclear armed country. The only way to win this war is not to fight it in the first place. Despite knowing the consequences there surely is a nuclear threshold that may be hit during a war.

Also if some Indians have the delusion that India wont be effected in case of a war they are that at best, delusion-ed!! India have the same to lose as we do and God Forbade it is not certain which country will hit that threshold first. Once it does the insane may happen, resulting is totally annihilation. Perhaps the British can come then and rule the area again.

 

[nForce]

Someone just quoted me an entire reference section of wikipedia!!!
This is a first time!!

 

[Hyperion]

Assuming China stopped all forms of enrichment and separation in mid 80's - from open sources:

16 ~ 17 tonnes of HEU + 15x LEU
3 - 4 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium......

You do the maths........ a full fledged nuclear state from 60's..............now if we take into account 'certain' new facilities that came online in early 2000's...... well, I'll leave the number crunching for you.....

Do you have any other figures ?

Because Wiki is the gospel truth............ most probably a 9 year old!

Someone just quoted me an entire reference section of wikipedia!!!
This is a first time!!

 

[nForce]

Assuming China stopped all forms of enrichment and separation in mid 80's - from open sources:

16 ~ 17 tonnes of HEU + 15x LEU
3 - 4 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium......

You do the maths........ a full fledged nuclear state from 60's..............now if we take into account 'certain' new facilities that came online in early 2000's...... well, I'll leave the number crunching for you.....

Hey.. this is so unfair..
I asked you because I have no idea in the first place. Can you please elaborate ?

 

[Spectre]

Someone just quoted me an entire reference section of wikipedia!!!
This is a first time!!

That wasn't the reference section of wiki.

Wish you would pay more attention

 

[Echo_419]

@Spectre @macnurv @scorpionx @AUSTERLITZ @levina @nair @jamahir @Bussard Ramjet @Skull and Bones @Echo_419 @Water Car Engineer et al !



Japan has given in to India’s demand that it be allowed to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from Japanese-made reactors, negotiation sources said, marking a major shift in Japan’s stance against proliferation.

India, a nuclear power that conducted its first weapons test in 1974 using reprocessed plutonium, has not joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Japan has been seeking measures to guarantee India will not divert extracted plutonium — which could be used to build nuclear weapons — for military use, but no agreement has been reached on the issue, the sources said Thursday.

This is the first time Tokyo has allowed a country using Japanese reactors to conduct fuel reprocessing. Since the Fukushima meltdowns in 2011, Japan has concluded nuclear equipment supply agreements with six countries, including Jordan, Russia, Turkey and Vietnam. But not one had been allowed to reprocess spent fuel generated by the reactors.

As a condition for allowing reprocessing, Japan has suggested throughout the bilateral negotiations, which began in 2010, that India submit an annual report detailing the amount of plutonium generated through reprocessing and where it is stored.

But India rejected the proposal, saying it already has a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency that subjects it to inspection by the nuclear watchdog, the sources said.

Some Japanese officials had been cautious about approving reprocessing, but Tokyo is now set to agree because its ally the United States has already done so, they said.

The U.S. recently reached a broad nuclear deal with India on condition that India submit certain information regarding extracted plutonium.


Japan eases fuel rules for India nuclear deal | The Japan Times

Long live our ties

 

[danger007]

Yes, I know it doesn't, however, we are a nasty nation, trust you me, we will find a way that Japan feels the pain. Patience is a virtue we understand too well.

no need i will provide a map which shows way to reach japan...

 

[Echo_419]

I think it's difficult for nations to wise-up even after digesting massive amount of nuclear radiation by being bombed - they still thirst for more........ more they will get..........Does Japan seriously think that China and Pakistan will sit idly while India processes more plutonium from Japanese reactors for it's arsenal? Japan just became an official enemy state........... excellent, more wholehearted support for China in all it's future SCS endeavors....... and by the way, it should get ready for some "nuclear terrorism" too..... shit happens........

Lol

Can you clarify the ticking time bomb remark in reference to NPP?

Solar energy is far from viable but in next 20-30 years may be tech improves sufficiently to make cheap and more efficient solar panels.

India is a poor nation and can't afford solar power as a viable source of energy, we need energy and infrastructure badly to progress and change our economic profile and thermal is the cheapest energy available which suits our purposes. Alternately Nuclear Power is being developed as a source of clean energy. Wind and Solar will remain fringe elements for foreseeable future. Yes, there will announcements and investments in Solar and Wind but the Suzlon example is a cautionary tale in relying too much on it.

We can't skip the development curve which is Thermal and Hyrdro -> Nuclear -> Solar & Wind.

Infact I know of very few nations who have majority of their energy needs met by Solar & Wind and they are all developed with extremely high GDP per Capita.

I fully agree with you
This TOI article also states the same
100,000MW of costly solar power can sink ‘Make in India’ - TOI Blogs

Experimental Thorium Based and Defense Based reactors are there.

None for mass production of energy. All such reactors are imported

We have nuclear reactors dude

India should offer a deal to japan which they can't refuse. They should make nukes out of japanese nuclear fuel supply and own them jointly with japan. That way japan can become nuclear country in a minute if push comes to shove

Japan already posses all the building blocks to become a nuclear country it is only a matter of political will

Hyperion,

Your post comes off a bit hostile, and perhaps you may not understand that Japan has vested interests in all of South Asia. Our vested interest and investments in this region of the world just this year will reach close to $50 Billion. Pakistan is included in this entente with South Asia.

I cannot for the life of me understand your message. You make it seem as if Pakistan, a long time friend and partner of Japan's is our enemy, or you make it seem that Japan is a threat to Pakistan when that is simply unfounded.

Japan is not only helping India's quest for nuclear energy , but also Turkey. In fact we have concluded a $20 Billion nuclear project with Turkey just this week.

Again, I don't understand your provocative statement.



And what would that be?

I agree Indo-Japanese relations are very important & critical to be affected by a small little country like Pakistan

 

[nForce]

That wasn't the reference section of wiki.

Wish you would pay more attention

My bad. It sure looked like one.

 

[Echo_419]

Personally speaking I think it is wise for Japan to stay clear of projects in NE India as it might be interpreted wrongly by our mutual friends in Beijing. Japan ca provide assistance in funding infrastructure projects such as water and sanitation to providing specialist advisors , but direct role should be evaded at all cost.

That's my personal view.

See that's what I am worried about our enemies are amassing against us & we are still deciding whether to country them or not & I don't see a reason why Japan should not participate in infra projects in NE specially when the Chinese are themselves participating

Well, try to understand this......... with this 'easing' of fuel export regulations, you are, if not more, freeing up India's fissile material stockpile to make more nuclear weapons, which won't be used to make 'nuclear curry', but in fact will be aimed squarely at Pakistan and China....

This is a very calculated move on part of Japan to do Uncle Sam's bidding, let's not play a game of words here and call it what it is........... and my response was very calculated, and I'm sure, so will Pakistan's response, overt and covert one.......

We live in a highly polarized and volatile world, as Japan has hedged it's bets, then she should also be ready to take the slack for it as well. All is not honky dory in Tokyo anymore, and Japans credentials of a pacifist state just took a huge hit....

Talk is cheap

 

[SrNair]

I think it's difficult for nations to wise-up even after digesting massive amount of nuclear radiation by being bombed - they still thirst for more........ more they will get..........Does Japan seriously think that China and Pakistan will sit idly while India processes more plutonium from Japanese reactors for it's arsenal? Japan just became an official enemy state........... excellent, more wholehearted support for China in all it's future SCS endeavors....... and by the way, it should get ready for some "nuclear terrorism" too..... shit happens........

It is this attitude that you should change.Who started all of this shit ?
I would say China.
They didnt anticipate the possible counteraction from India when they helped Pakistan for making bombs.


We dont give a shit whether China and Pakistan sit idly or not.Japan has her own interest and so we have our own interest.

And aTTA like you know that huge difference between Japan and Pakistan that almost shows the irrelevance of Pakistan.

Oh please..... what has 100+ weapons got to do with "adequate" or "enough"? Threat perception is an open ended equation and the working space and clout that 1000 deliverable weapons gives, is something that India oh-so-much desires.... you very well know that, this is precisely the situation that needs to be avoided......

You want more spent-fuel for your growing 'power hungry' population? Ratify FMCT and enter into NPT! Why not do that - after all Japan traded the WHOLE of Okinawa for it? Don't give me absolute rubbish like, the Indian population will not like it's sovereignty being traded for accounting of it's fissile material - it's a defunct logic for 2 year olds.........

Hyper bhai.
We dont need reprocessed Japanese fuel for fissile material.We have enough domestic resources for making more bombs.