US nuclear technology to india, a threat to asian peace

[hovercraft]

Differing with US ambassador, Pakistan former foreign secretary, Dr Tanveer Ahmad Khan said there would be no watch on Indian military nuclear installations and India would be free to enhance uranium production for military purposes. India will be able to acquire capability of making 50 atomic bombs in consequence of its nuclear deal with US, he claimed.

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/mar-2006/31/index4.php

 

[killbill2]

Probabaly just an excuse for the US to get at China by giving weapons to her old enemy.:soldier

 

[Big-E]

India can already make all the bombs she wants.

 

[killbill2]

India can already make all the bombs she wants.

Yea but they don't have ICBMs yet which is a major lag, not to mention they probably aren't as advacned as the US,USSR, and China in it.Im telling you this si simply an indirect way to attack China and not get balmed. It's a regional thing.ope

 

[Waylander]

What have ICBMs to do with the nuclear techology given to them by the US?
They don't get closer to achieving them by the deal.

 

[XEROX]

Yea but they don't have ICBMs yet which is a major lag, not to mention they probably aren't as advacned as the US,USSR, and China

I have to disagree, India can build ICBMs that could hit any nation on earth - but why would she want to do that??, The Indian Space Research Organisation plans to put into orbit the GSLV-MK III rocket that can lift a payload of 4 tonne sat in GTO, with that kind of technolgy an ICBM monster could be possible

India can already make all the bombs she wants

Iv read somewhere that they have been simulating more advanced nuclear weapons through super-computers

 

[Big-E]

I have to disagree, India can build ICBMs that could hit any nation on earth - but why would she want to do that??, The Indian Space Research Organisation plans to put into orbit the GSLV-MK III rocket that can lift a payload of 4 tonne sat in GTO, with that kind of technolgy an ICBM monster could be possible

I have to agree with this assesment, basic ICBM technology comes from rocketry, if you have a space program you can build ICBMs. The reason India doesn't have them is she has no threats outside of SRBMs.

 

[powerslavenegi]

Hmm.. I Doubt

Iv read somewhere that they have been simulating more advanced nuclear weapons through super-computers

I require an expert opinion here,how close is a country(India/Pakistan ) that has weapons grade uranium/plutonium and has detonated nuke devices, in terms of fabricating a miniature warhead to arm their missiles?

Coming back to the topic the treaty between US and India is yet to be ratified,moreover in case no such pact is signed,India would have to look back to it's former aide i.e. Russia for assistance in area of Nuclear programme.

 

[Rich]

My friends this is a non-issue. India is so far along in technology and nuclear weapons development a little horse-trading with the Yanks for civilian energy applications shouldnt even make the last page of the newspaper. I will add that India is a functioning Democracy that we should be improving relations with.

 

[aaaditya]

besides nuclear fission technology is rapidly becoming outdated,now the trend favours the nuclear fusion technology and india is a member of the iter project in france.

so i dont think that the usa technology will benefit india ,since india already has its own nuclear technology,the reason for this deal is to acquire power reactors,though indians design and build their own reactors ,they cannot mass produce a large number of reactors in a short period of time and hence this deal.

 

[hovercraft]

I read in the newspaper(nawa-i-waqt) that this is technology to re-use the nuclear fuel. The used uranium from reacter contains 1% pure plutonium by re using this material it gives more energy and 100% pure plutonium. Which is not discard able the only use of plutonium is making atomic bombs. So by this technology India will becomes able to make 50 atomic bombs annually.

 

[n21]

If i am not wrong ,any nuclear fuel supplied by the NSG or reactors build would be strictly under international watch and cannot be diverted by the recipient nation. So i do not see how india would be building nuclear weapons using fuel supplied by the NSG.

India has been trying for this treaty mainly to meet it's heavy enery needs of it's growing enconomy,bcoz it's reactor manufacturing capacity cannot meet the needs.Also it faces severe fuel shortages...

The concern that has been pointed out is that since NSG would supply fuel for the new reactors,it would free india's own nuclear materials to increase the number of nuclear weapons.

Moreover if weapon productions is carried out the way as described,u can imagine the amount of plutonium required to build 50 bombs..and huge amount of U-235 required to get that plutonium

 

[hovercraft]

First of all, Indian nuclear reactors are not in under control of IAEA. And Indian safety record is very bad. India has 18 nuclear reactor (more then china) so their uranium requirement is too much high. The nuclear fuel supplier to India is Russia whose safety record is too bad (remember Chernobyl) and in agreement India is only to chained to back the used Russian uranium.
But this technology also gives technology to enrich more uranium and it is open restriction to NPT and UN laws and IAEA rules.

See this news publish in The Nation newspaper

“Weapons experts warn US lawmakers on Indian nuclear deal

Arms experts cautioned US lawmakers Tuesday against backing a civilian nuclear deal with India that they said violated a global atomic agreement and dampened efforts to reign in nuclear renegades Iran and North Korea.
"The main point is that our strategic interest dictates that we should not discard our nonproliferation policy and our Treaty obligations," the experts said in a joint letter, citing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"To do so would only enfeeble our case against NPT violators," the 10 experts said, referring to Iran and North Korea.
By paving the way for the United States and other nuclear supplier states to provide nuclear fuel to India, the deal would free up the Asian giant's "limited domestic nuclear fuel making capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons," they said.”

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/june-2006/21/latest.php

 

[aaaditya]

First of all, Indian nuclear reactors are not in under control of IAEA. And Indian safety record is very bad. India has 18 nuclear reactor (more then china) so their uranium requirement is too much high. The nuclear fuel supplier to India is Russia whose safety record is too bad (remember Chernobyl) and in agreement India is only to chained to back the used Russian uranium.
But this technology also gives technology to enrich more uranium and it is open restriction to NPT and UN laws and IAEA rules.

See this news publish in The Nation newspaper

“Weapons experts warn US lawmakers on Indian nuclear deal

Arms experts cautioned US lawmakers Tuesday against backing a civilian nuclear deal with India that they said violated a global atomic agreement and dampened efforts to reign in nuclear renegades Iran and North Korea.
"The main point is that our strategic interest dictates that we should not discard our nonproliferation policy and our Treaty obligations," the experts said in a joint letter, citing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"To do so would only enfeeble our case against NPT violators," the 10 experts said, referring to Iran and North Korea.
By paving the way for the United States and other nuclear supplier states to provide nuclear fuel to India, the deal would free up the Asian giant's "limited domestic nuclear fuel making capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons," they said.”

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/june-2006/21/latest.php

you have made several mistakes in your article .

they are:

1)all indian civilian power reactors are under iaea safeguards,with the exception of the research reactors cirrus(to be retired),dhruva(primarily used for making nuclear weapons) and the advanced heavy water reactor.

2)iaea has acknowledged india's safety record to be amongst the best,so your opinion does not count here ,i suggest you seek out the iaea website and check out their bulletin on safety records(india's is better than japan's)

3)earlier france and canada were india's major nuclear fuel suppliers ,but after the ban by the western powers ,india started importing uranium from russia(for vver reactors,the agreement has recently been signed) and from china (around 100 tons imported in the early 2000's ),india also exported about 20 tons of heavy water to china.

 

[zoolander]

How does civilian technology change the wmd balance in asia?

The nuclear materail material will surely cut the amount of time india need to make more weapons but its not as though India can't get access to these materials.

I believe the ICBM and long range cruise missiles will alter or even out the WMD playing field in asia.

 

[tntsas]

In my opinion,the posibility of the war between China and Indian is very small.
But the posibility of war between India and Pakistan is big.And they all have nuclear weapon.It is horrible for the world.

 

[Awang se]

we don't speak about China nuc tech to Pakistan yet....

 

[tntsas]

There is one thing that i can not understand:
The goverment of USA always says that they are trying to stop nuclear proliferation but they give nuclear technology to India.

 

[XEROX]

There is one thing that i can not understand:
The goverment of USA always says that they are trying to stop nuclear proliferation but they give nuclear technology to India.

Their proliferating nuclear tech for clean, efficient sources of energy what India badly needs.

Im suprised at why Pakistan are getting so edgy about the security of Asia, when their own Mr Proliferator Mr A.Q Khan was trying to sell secrets to every tom, dick and harry.

 

[hovercraft]

1)all indian civilian power reactors are under iaea safeguards,with the exception of the research reactors cirrus(to be retired),dhruva(primarily used for making nuclear weapons) and the advanced heavy water reactor.

From 22 only six sites which is under IAEA and IAEA safeguards are have authority/proper inspections in only two reactors at kudankulam (KKNP).
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2004/table_a20.pdf

and
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-chairman of a bipartisan task force on nonproliferation said,
"With one simple move, the president has blown a hole in the nuclear rules that the entire world has been playing by and broken his own word to assure that we will not ship nuclear technology to India without the proper safeguards,"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/03/MNG1IHHVKA1.DTL

2)iaea has acknowledged india's safety record to be amongst the best,so your opinion does not count here ,i suggest you seek out the iaea website and check out their bulletin on safety records(india's is better than japan's)

May be better then Japan. But remember,

Nuclear Accident in India
August 20, 1981
Two to three tons of heavy water leaked out of an atomic reactor in western India on Aug. 5 and one of the power plant's units was shut down.

For more and complete informations about this deal read this,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/usindia_nuclear_deal.html