BRAHMIN Finance Minister of India leads Manusmriti Hegemony to Invoke War Goddess Durga for the Final Kill! At UN, Gaddafi drops 'Kashmir bomb'!Ahead of UNSC summit, US calls all countries to sign NPT.Kakodkar says Pokhran-11 tests fully successful.Israel welcomes Obama's stand on negotiations with Palestine.Markets may rise further in the next 6 months.PM to push for radical reforms of global financial institutions.Global food output needs to be increased by 70 pc by 2050: FAO
Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams, Chapter 382
Palash Biswas
Troops pullout 'disastrous'
WASHINGTON, 23 SEPT: Cautioning the Obama administration against withdrawing from Afghanistan soon, a powerful US lawmaker has said this would lead to Pakistan again supporting Al Qaida and Taliban as part of its policy to counter the Indian influence in the region. Amidst report that USA is considering withdrawal of forces and instead focus more on aerial strikes, Congressman Mr Ike Skelton said such a policy would be disastrous for the USA.
Meanwhile, twelve Afghan civilians died in roadside bomb blasts in the past 24 hours, officials said today.;PTI
Pranab to don a priest's mantle during Durga Puja
Suri (WB): Far from the hurly-burly of politics, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee plays another role at this time of the year -- a priest worshipping Goddess Durga.
Mukherjee worships the Goddess at Miriti, his ancestral village near Kirnahar in Birbhum district, 200 km from Kolkata.
"The puja is around 100 years old. Pranab's grandfather late Jangaleswar Mukherjee started the puja," said Goutam Roy, who has been looking after puja arrangements for the last couple of years.
"After him, Kamadakinkar Mukherjee, father of Pranab Mukherjee continued it. Pranab babu does the same," he said.
Mukherjee himself performs the puja on Mahastami puja, the second day of the four day festival, with thousands of people including villagers, party workers, family members visiting Miriti.
Source: PTI
Delhi alters Maoist strategy
- Anti-rebel operations first, development later
SANKARSHAN THAKUR
Security personnel during an anti-Naxalite operation in Bengal
New Delhi, Sept. 23: The Centre has effected a key, and contentious, shift in its anti-Naxalite strategy, delinking development imperatives from armed crackdown which is now being flagged as a top priority.
"Police action and development do not go hand in hand, as if they were lovers," a top source in the Union home ministry said today.
"Police action has to precede development because development just cannot happen in territory where the government can't enter. We must first rid areas of armed Maoists, establish our authority and then, of course, it is our intention to implement development programmes."
This marks a significant change in the Centre's approach to dealing with Naxalism, which has hitherto been to achieve a calibrated mix of addressing socio-economic grievances and neutralising armed rebellion.
Admitting that this was a meditated change in tack after P. Chidambaram's arrival as home ministry boss, a source said: "We are on the confrontation path with Left-wing extremists, they have spread to 2,000 of the 14,000 police station areas in the country. We have to regain territory from them and establish and assert our authority, roads and schools and hospitals and telephones will follow. We cannot have any development in areas that we do not hold, so first they have to be rid of the extremists bent on violence."
Leading internal security think tanks, such as the Institute of Conflict Management headed by K.P.S. Gill, have long been lobbying the Centre to give precedence to the "war on Naxalites" and not "confuse it with development issues".
Articulating views that are already with the home minister, Ajai Sahni, executive director of the institute, said: "Unless and until we have totally eliminated the disruptive dominance of Maoists over large parts, there is no point talking of development, they are the biggest stumbling block to development, they have to be removed first."
Home ministry sources repeatedly quoted the June 12 document of the CPI (Maoist) to argue that the Naxalites were "bent on violence and mayhem against the state and the people" and, therefore, the government had to "squarely meet" the threat posed by them.
The June document flays the government's preparations to counter Naxalites in their strongholds and says: "We have to once again prepare the people of the area to resist the marauders and mercenaries sent by Sonia-Manmohan-Chidambaram combine to subdue them, destroy their culture and loot the resources of the region for the benefit of a handful of exploiters. This time the fight will be more long-drawn and more bitter than the one against the British imperialist armies."
The sources said the government was prepared to negotiate with the Maoists if they "abjured arms" but asserted that the June document was proof they had no such intention.
"At the moment, the red terror can only be tamed by the state asserting its authority," a source said. "They are the aggressors, not the state of India, they are blowing up roads and hijacking trains, they are destroying public property, they are the ones who have undertaken to violently overthrow the state, we have to stop them. Our forces will be deployed to rollback these so called liberators."
The sources offered no insight into the anti-Naxalite offensive — no modus, no timelines — but underlined that the Centre was "determined to go after elements that were ideologically committed to the politics of violence".
The Centre's new stern line comes in the midst of a surge in state-Naxalite confrontation across several states including Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
In a move that could indicate the home ministry is laying the ground for a major offensive, it is also employing a high-voltage PR offensive against Naxalites, placing ads in a slew of newspapers.
It may be no coincidence that over the last month, police have picked up two top Maoists leaders — Amit Bagchi in Ranchi and Khobad Ghandy in Delhi — taking the number of politburo members in custody to seven — the result, officials maintain, of better and more cross-linked intelligence inputs.
Asked whether these arrests were part of a broader drive to mop up not merely CPI (Maoist) members but also Naxalite sympathisers, a source said: "These (the people being arrested) are committed to the overthrow of the state, they are top leaders of a proscribed organisation, the law applies to them and it is being applied. If we find them in Chhattisgarh they will be picked up there, if they are in Delhi they will be picked up here, but we are going by the due process of law, we are not bumping them off. We are totally against fake encounters, they are condemnable, but if people wage war on the nation, they are in violation of the law of the land."
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/jsp/frontpage/story_11536065.jsp
Puja pick of right spirit
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Raima Sen at Model Puja 2008 Tridhara Sammilani last year
When the cars roll out on Thursday morning bearing the standards of CESC The Telegraph True Spirit Puja, both the visitors to the pandals they carry and the puja organisers they visit will be united in one goal — gifting the people of Calcutta and Howrah a safer, happier and more meaningful festival.
Of the 267 pujas to be visited over Sashthi and Saptami, those crowned last year are working extra hard.
Debashis Kumar of Model Puja 2008 Tridhara Sammilani on Manohar-pukur Road is confident of getting another thumbs up. "We have improved on last year's showing with regard to fire-fighting and electicity supply gear. Another ramp has been added for physically challenged visitors," he says, watching volunteers control the crowd queuing up to see Nepal's Durbar Square in south Calcutta.
Tridhara's soul is a medical centre, open thrice a week for the poor. "We treat about 100 patients a week." Last year's TSP prize money (of Rs 50,000) too has been pumped in here.
When Aila struck, Manicktalla Chaltabagan Lohapatty Durgapuja Committee raised Rs 50,000. "Our first destination was Gosaba where we distributed water barrels and dry food before sailing to Rangaberia, Kochukhali and Kumirmari," recalls Suren Khara of the Five Star puja. Tridhara too handed over 300 saris and 100 mosquito nets to Aila victims.
Kalitala Sporting Club, off the Bypass, another Five-Star status bearer, has gone the extra mile to keep to the right side of the law. "We reduced the height of our Meenakshi temple pandal as soon as the court ruling (of a 40-ft vertical cap) came out," says club president Prabir Das.
Holding a puja in an economically backward area means perennial budget constraints. "But we are committed to bring our rickshaw-puller neighbours under a group insurance scheme." Just as TSP is committed to stand by pujas with a heart.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/jsp/calcutta/story_11534774.jsp
SEEDS OF DOUBT
Months after the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, unveiled his AfPak policy amid much fanfare, he was found asking himself on television last Sunday if this was the "right strategy". The re-think has been inspired by the request for more troops by General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, who is also Mr Obama's man for the job. Technically, the president should have little problem in acquiescing to the demand since the AfPak strategy, at its heart, is committed to defeating the Taliban in active combat through a surge in troops. Of course, development and the strengthening of the country's civil institutions are also part of this policy. But the US and its allies have already shown their belief in the workability of the 'surge factor' by commissioning more troops in Afghanistan — immediately after the announcement of the policy, and before the August elections in Afghanistan. The situation must have changed dramatically in Afghanistan since that time to sow seeds of doubt in a man who has consistently wanted more active and prolonged involvement in the country. Unfortunately, other than two obvious developments, nothing in the subcontinent appears to have altered much, given the inconclusive presidential election in Afghanistan and the surge in Taliban activity. The two are connected. That the August elections threw up no clear verdict is as much an evidence of the ineffectual leadership of Hamid Karzai as of the effectiveness with which the resurgent Taliban have spread fear and throttled the political machinery. This could not have been entirely unforeseen. In other words, the Americans could not have been so foolish as to depend entirely on the winnability of Mr Karzai to facilitate their exit strategy.
Mr Obama's reluctance to commit himself to more troops has to be explained by other changes then: first, his obvious domestic difficulties, which have increased steadily, and second, the role of the allies. Italy is as unwilling as Germany to chip in any more. Finally, the increasing possibility of using former warlords to fight the war against the Taliban on behalf of the foreign powers. The European powers are supposed to be already weighing the pros and cons of implementing this policy more forcefully. This can only mean that Mr Obama can sit on General McChrystal's recommendations for a little longer.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/jsp/opinion/story_11533115.jsp
CMO nod
Calcutta, Sept. 23: The government has received the approval of governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi for creating a chief minister's office, sources at Writers' Buildings said.
The matter will be placed in the next cabinet meeting scheduled for October 29.
In the CMO, experts in various fields will work to help the chief minister by providing him information. The sources said a notification will be made on October 1 and placed before the cabinet.
Indians among most corrupt while doing business abroad: TII
23 Sep 2009, 2200 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: At least 30 per cent of 2,742 business executives surveyed across the world regard Indians among the most corrupt when doing business 10 highest salary-earners of India Inc
India's top 10 business houses
Tycoons with a golden heart
abroad to "speed things up", according to a report by an NGO Transparency International India (TII) here.
"The Global Corruption Report 2009: Corruption and the Private Sector (GCR)" which was released today worldwide claims that Indian and Chinese companies play an active role in global business but engage in "bribery" when doing business abroad.
The Competition Act enacted in 2002 which promotes and sustains competition in markets and protects the interest of consumers has remained a non-starter in India, as per the report.
"A minimum of 100 senior executives each in 26 countries were questioned regarding the practices used by business persons from various nations," it says.
"TII has had some measure of success with public sector firms with the use of Integrity Pact, a tool to check corruption in procurement and tendering. We have not been able to generate similar interest among the private sector yet," says TII chairman RH Tahiliani in a statement.
Another concern the report addresses is how the sheer economic power of some firms and business sectors translates into disproportionate and undue leverage on political-decision making.
"Companies have no clear cut guideline on regulating and making transparent political contributions. Corporates report high-level strategic commitments to anti-corruption but they do not always report on the necessary support systems required to meet these commitments," says Anupama Jha, executive director of TII.
The report also points out that half of international business executives polled estimated that corruption raised project costs by at least 10 per cent.
"Ultimately it is citizens who pay: consumers around the world were overcharged around US $300 billion through almost 300 private international cartels discovered from 1990 to 2005," she adds.
Now, austerity drive in PM's visit
24 Sep 2009, 1459 hrs IST, IANS
PITTSBURGH: Austerity starts here! That's the message the Indian government, perhaps, seeks to convey during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit
here to attend the G20 Summit.
The first casualty of the austerity drive has been the strength of the media delegation accompanying the prime minister. It now stands reduced to 29 journalists from the 35 or more who are normally part of the entourage.
This apart, gone are the days when caviar was a part of the normal indulgence and champagne flowed freely. Now, instead of a rather elaborate food menu to choose from, the choice before the prime minister's fellow travellers was quite limited.
But scribes from south India, as also others with a taste for the normal cuisine in southern states, were not disappointed. The tradition of serving curd rice, started by former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, has not stopped.
Nilekani's book shortlisted for FT-Goldman Sachs award
22 Sep 2009, 2132 hrs IST, PTI
LONDON: 'Imagining India', a book written by IT czar Nandan Nilekani, has been shortlisted for the 2009 Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business
Book of the Year award.
Besides the book of Nilekani, chairman of the Unique Identification Database Authority of India, five other books have been shortlisted for the prestigious award.
Announcing the short-list today, the judges, Lionel Barber, Lloyd C Blankfein, Mario Monti, Helen Alexander, Lynda Gratton and Alexander S Friedman said the books provided "the most compelling and enjoyable insight into modern business issues".
The winning author will receive £30,000 and the other five shortlisted authors will each receive £5,000.
The overall winner of the 2009 Book Award will be announced at an Award Dinner at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London on 29 October, at which Lord Mandelson, UK Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, will be the keynote speaker.
24/09/2009
Rahul stays in Dalit hut again, Mayawati government fumes
Lucknow/ New Delhi, Sep 24 (IANS) Rahul Gandhi has done it again. The Congress general secretary took his party colleagues and the state administration in Uttar Pradesh by surprise when he landed here unannounced and spent Wednesday night in a poor Dalit's hut in a remote village of Shravasti district without many in the state getting to know about it.
Caught unawares, a peeved Uttar Pradesh government of Chief Minister Mayawati shot off a letter to the central government complaining that it might create security problems for the highly protected politician.
To this the Congress in Delhi reacted strongly, saying Gandhi was not expected to inform other poliitical parties about his movements and that the Special Protection Group (SPG) was told about his visit.
"No politician informs other parties about his movements. The SPG was informed and after that his security is the responsibility of the state government," Congress spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan told reporters in Delhi.
While Congressmen and the Uttar Pradesh administration alike sweated to track down his whereabouts as he went about moving from one place to another, Rahul decided to stay in Rampur-Deogan village under Bhinga sub-division of Shravasti district, where he spent the night in the hut of a Dalit, people in the lowest rung of India's socio-economic ladder.
He not only chose to share a meal with his host Cheddi Pasi, but also freely mingled with the villagers Thursday morning, asking them about their day-to-day problems and inquiring whether the benefits of various centrally sponsored schemes were reaching them.
Local cops and media were kept at bay till 12.30 p.m., when Rahul once again whizzed off to another undeclared destination, knowledgeable security officials said.
It was widely believed that he would drive through Gonda and Faizabad, making similar unscheduled halts before reaching his parliamentary constituency Amethi by Thursday evening.
Fuming at his wild cat movements, the state government dashed off a letter to the union home ministry expressing concern over violation of protocol by the Gandhi scion.
"Rahul Gandhi is a SPG protected VIP, whose movements have to be properly monitored and covered under a prescribed security cordon; but the manner in which he was spinning around the state on his own was a gross violation of the laid-down security norms; after all it is the responsibility of the state to provide him appropriate security apart from his SPG cover," pointed out a top police officer.
"We have conveyed our concern in this regard to the centre and I am sure they will take serious note of it," he said.
Besides maintaining that the SPG was informed of Rahul's tour, the Congress spokesperson claimed that the ruling Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) felt politically threatened. "It is the (result of) insecurity that the mass contact programme of Rahul Gandhi has generated," she said.
While Rahul's movements from Barabanki, where he made his first halt after zipping away in his Tata Safari from Lucknow airport, were reported by some local journalists who ran into him by chance, his subsequent drive to Shravasti and the night halt in a tiny village remained a secret until Thursday morning.
Local Congressmen were led to believe that he had driven off from Bahraich towards Gonda, from where he would head via Faizabad to Amethi where he would spend the night at the Munshiganj guest house.
Barabanki, Bahraich and Faizabad are all neighbouring districts.
Party workers in Amethi kept waiting for Rahul almost the whole night and it was only in the morning that they realised that their MP had chosen a village in Shravasti for his night halt.
On Jan 16 this year, Rahul and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband spent a night in a Dalit family's hut in Simra village, part of Rahul's Amethi constituency after his visitor wanted to get a taste of "real" rural life in India.
Source: Indo-Asian News Service
24/09/2009World stocks, oil fall ahead of G20 meet
London: World stocks slipped from the previous day's 11-month high on Thursday after oil prices fell and caution grew ahead of the Group of 20 summit meeting, prompting investors to cut back on risky assets.
U.S. stocks fell on Wednesday as investors grew worried that the Federal Reserve may be closer to pulling back on extraordinarily loose monetary policy.
However, the Fed promised on Wednesday to hold interest rates very low for a long time after leaving them close to zero percent as expected, which supported government bonds across the board in Europe.
The timing for exit strategy -- or plans to unwind emergency economic support -- is a key issue for investors as the two-day G20 summit in Pittsburgh starts on Thursday. G20 leaders are seeking ways to nurture the recovery from the recession and build safeguards against future catastrophes.
Crude oil prices fell below $69 a barrel, adding to a nearly four percent drop on Wednesday, after data showing an unexpectedly high build up in U.S. oil and products stockpiles raised concerns oil prices may have risen too fast.
Thursday's decline in world stocks follows a near 27 percent rise since January in the benchmark MSCI world equity index, recouping more than half of last year's losses.
"It's a dose of reality. Although there is cash out there, investors are saying no thank you, we have gone high enough and want to take money out of the market," said Justin Urquhart Stewart, director at Seven Investment Management.
The MSCI world index fell 0.3 percent while the FTSEurofirst 300 index fell more than 1 percent.
Emerging stocks fell 0.9 percent.
Sterling hit
Sterling fell broadly after Bank of England governor Mervyn King said the weaker pound is helping a necessary rebalancing of the UK economy towards exports.
The UK currency fell as low as 90.89 pence per euro, its weakest since April, and was down 0.6 percent to $1.6238.
In the bond markets, the euro zone's benchmark September bund future rose 47 ticks.
The dollar rose a quarter percent against a basket of major currencies.
"Given the lengthy period of time it will likely take the economy and financial markets to fully recover, we do not foresee the Fed raising rates before the first quarter of 2011," Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch said in a note to clients.
Source: Reuters
Vijayan skips court, counsel wants Antony examined
Kochi (Kerala): Marxist leader Pinarayi Vijayan Thursday failed to appear before a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court here in connection with the SNC Lavalin corruption case, but his counsel demanded that Defence Minister A.K. Antony be examined by the investigating team.
The counsel for Vijayan, M.K. Damodaran, said the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) state secretary was not in good health and would be unable to appear in court.
Damodaran filed a special petition asking that Antony should be examined by the investigation team because he was chief minister in 1995 - the year the consultancy agreement with Canadian company SNC Lavalin was inked.
The CBI had issued summons to six former officials of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB); SNC Lavalin; Claus Trendl, former vice-president of the SNC Lavalin; besides Vijayan to appear before the court here.
The court asked notices to be served to Trendl and SNC Lavalin company and posted the case for Dec 30.
Five former KSEB officials arrived in court Thursday morning and got bail. But former KSEB official K.V. Rajasekharan Nair also did not turn up and he too has been asked to appear before the court Dec 30.
Vijayan, according to the CPI-M party organ, last week filed a news report stating that all his official engagements till Sep 25 has been postponed because of ill health.
On Aug 31, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Kerala government and the CBI on a petition filed by Vijayan challenging Governor R.S. Gavai's decision to grant permission to prosecute him in the SNC Lavalin case.
The CBI in June filed chargesheets against nine accused in the Rs.374 crore scam related to the company SNC Lavalin. Vijayan as the state power minister had inked the final agreement in 1997 for renovating three power plants in the state.
Source: IANS
24/09/2009UB will be world's No 1 spirits company next fiscal: Mallya
New Delhi: Liquor baron Vijay Mallya said his UB Group will overtake Diageo as the world's largest spirits maker by the next fiscal.
"This (fiscal) we will be selling 102 million cases of nine litres each. Next year we will be the single largest spirits company in the world," Vijay Mallya said at an Assocham event here.
He, however, did not elaborate how many million cases the group will sell in the next fiscal.
Currently, Diageo is the world's largest spirits maker and sold around 105 million cases last year.
Sharing his optimism, he said: "Bagpiper Whisky which I launched in 1979 as a trainee has taken over the largest selling whisky Johnny Walker in the world."
The UB Group has been scaling up its business through both organic and inorganic strategy in the quest for the top spot. In 2005, United Breweries acquired Shaw Wallace & Co, following which it was merged with the group's flagship company USL last year.
In 2007, UB Group company, United Spirits acquired Scotch whiskey major White & Mackay for 595 million pounds (about Rs 4,800 crore).
Lamenting the high taxes that are slapped on the spirits industry, Mallya said: "UB alone as single company has contributed Rs 15,000 crore as taxes in the last fiscal."
Source: PTI
At UN, Gaddafi drops 'Kashmir bomb'!Partnership in War against terror and Strategic Realliance in US Israel lead along with lessons of Internal security directly from NASA and Pentagon have combinedly made India a DECLARED Enemy of the Core Muslim World which is represented by elements like Gaddafi, once again the Virtual ROBOT in US hands to settle scores in global Diplomacy! India lost Saddam Husssai, the only Friend in Middle east endorsing Oil war and Shifting violently in the Zionist Camp.Thus, Libya's maverick leader Muammar Gaddafi tossed a minor diplomatic grenade at New Delhi from the United Nations podium, saying Kashmir should be an independent buffer state between India and Pakistan.
In an exhausting 90-minute speech Gaddafi spoke about the political and diplomatic history of the world in the last half century in his first ever appearance at the UN.
Most of Gaddafi's rant was aimed at US and the western world, although he did not spare others, including the UN Security Council. At one point, he even blamed India and Japan for robbing Somalia of its fishing wealth, forcing Somalis to take up piracy.
Gaddafi reeled off the various excesses of the big powers, calling for reform of the security council. "It should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the 'terror council'," he said.
Nuclear Armament and rocketing Defence Expanditure may not solve the Problems of a Plural society like India and Peripherry economy of the Tri Iblis satanic Corporate Galaxy Order! Please realise it! Why the Secular India is so much so HOSTILE against Minority Muslims, the answer of this intriguing question may open the Avenue of Resolution. As the Sustained Manusmriti Hegemony hates and tries to Finish the CONVERTED Muslims, Kashmir remains a Permanent Puzzle to be used by International Power Politics!
Anti Taliban indian Crused thus roots in our Sacred and damned caste system which keeps the majority Indigenous aboriginal minrity communities as Bonded Slaves suffering from inherent inequality and Injustice. Taliban is the basic Key Word linked to Terrorism which justifies the US Israel led war Agaisnt terror as well as Indo Us Nuclear deal and the strategic Realliance which gets open the Flood gates of Gloabl, specially US Weapon Industry recession inflicted in India and stimulates the Nuclear Armamaent and the Space Missios worthless! Majority masses have no escape route to free them from Enslaved status with Predestined Persecution and Murder! Whenever they stand united as a nationality or Region , are declared Branded Extremist or terrorist. Then the State Power acomplishes the agenda of economic reforms and Mass destruction with Repressive Arms, Military Option and zero Tolerance. hence, no wonder, India today said it does not make any distinction between a "good Taliban and a bad Taliban" and consider the extremist group as a
terrorist organisation.
"Taliban per se from the Indian point of view is a sheer terrorist organisation," External Affairs Minister S M Krishna said here when asked about his reported remark seeking a political settlement in Afghanistan.
Denying the report, Krishna said, "India makes no distinction between a good Taliban and a bad Taliban." He said he had spoken about a "political settlement among the people."
"What the people of Afghanistan want is something that they have to decide for themselves," he added.
In a recent interview published in the Wall Street Journal, Krishna was reported as saying that India believed there was no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and that NATO combat operations should give way to a political settlement with Taliban.
BRAHMIN Finance Minister of India leads Manusmriti Hegemony to Invoke War Goddess Durga for the Final Kill! Meanwhile, the Crown Prince of Indian Ruling TRIBLIS Zionist Dynasty tries hard to TOPPLE equations in the Cow Belt to stengthen the Corporate Arms of Ethnic Cleansing!As Indian prime Minister, the Washington White House IMPLANTED Economist of world bank, to push for radical reforms of global financial institutions,Global food output needs to be increased by 70 pc by 2050, FAODecalres!The global food production must shoot up by 70 per cent to be able to feed an additional 2.3 illion people by 2050, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said today. Whereas, the Change Icon in Galaxy Order Brrrack Obama is lauded by Israel as Israel welcomes Obama's stand on negotiations with Palestine!Palestine has expressed displeasure over US President Barack Obama's declaration that negotiations with Israel should begin 'without preconditions',
even as the Jewish state welcomed his stand.Indian Scientists led by no one else but KAKODKAR, claims all successful the FRAUD Nuclear tests!As President Barack Obama
prepares to chair a historic UN Security Council summit on nuclear non-proliferation, the US has asked all countries to join the NPT, a controversial treaty which is yet to be signed by countries like India and Pakistan.
Six companies led by India-origin people including banking behemoth Citigroup and soft drinks major Pepsico have been named among the greenest American companies by Newsweek magazine. The list of 500 Greenest big companies in the US compiled by Newsweek is topped by technology bellwether Hewlett-Packard.
Rubbishing doubts on the efficacy of the hydrogen bomb test in 1998, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar on Thursday said
scientists have achieved success in building deterrence capability of upto 200 kiltons.
"Once again I would like to re-emphasise that the 1998 nuclear tests were fully successful. We had achieved all the objectives in toto.
"It has given us the capability to build deterrence based on both fission and thermonuclear weapon systems from modest to all the way upto 200 kilotons," he said addressing a press conference here.
Kakodkar, who was Director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in 1998, termed as "unnecessary" the controversy over the Pokhran-II nuclear tests triggered after claims by a former DRDO scientist that the hydrogen bomb experiment was a failure.
R Chidambaram, Chairman of the AEC in 1998 and the current Principal Scientific Adviser to the Union Government, made a presentation on the results of the Pokhran-II nuclear tests.
Former DRDO scientist K Santhanam, who was the DRDO coordinator for the 1998 tests, had claimed that the thermonuclear test was much below expectation triggering a controversy.
Santhanam had also demanded an inquiry by an independent panel of experts into the test results.
Meanwhile, India will push for radical reforms of the international financial institutions and continuance of the stimulus package to speed up the recovery of the crisis-ridden global economy at the G-20 Summit here tomorrow.
On the other hand, Lashing out at the Uttar Pradesh government for objecting to the surprise visit of Congress MP, Rahul Gandhi, UPCC president Rita Bahuguna
Joshi on Thursday said that it shows chief minister's insecurity over inroads being made by the Congress leader in her vote bank.
"The chief minister considered dalits and deprived sections as her vote bank and she is concerned, as she feels that Rahul Gandhi might disturb by accessing it," Joshi told in Lucknow.
"Rather than security of Rahul Gandhi, Mayawati is more concerned that by reaching the poor and deprived, he might disturb her vote bank, as she looks at things only from the angle of vote bank and not through the human angle," Joshi said.
Global leaders will institutionalize the G20 as the world's main economic governing council, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown A to Z of G-20
said on Thursday.
He said G20 leaders would meet regularly, with South Korea taking over the presidency next year.
"The G20 will take a bigger role in economic cooperation than the G8 has in the past," Brown told reporters ahead of this week's meeting of G20 leaders in Pittsburgh.
Brown said Shriti Vadera will leave her role as business minister to become Britain's G20 coordinator and work closely with South Korea.
Trade minister Mervyn Davies will take over Vadera's ministerial responsibilities.
Brown said he did not expect any discussion on the Chinese currency at this week's G20 meeting but said he would like to see China importing more.
"We would like to see China importing more from our countries," he said.
Brown noted there were $7 trillion worth of foreign exchange reserves which he said were "not necessarily being used in a constructive way."
Brown said he wanted to see the International Monetary Fund come up with an insurance scheme that would lessen some countries' need to accumulate reserves so that they could use those funds to support their economies.
Before flying to Pittsburgh later Thursday, Brown will attend a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on nuclear non-proliferation.
"We are coming to a moment of truth with Iran," Brown said. "We will be proposing fuller and tougher sanctions."
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who leads the Indian delegation at the summit being hosted by President Barack Obama, is also expected to make a strong pitch to the developed countries to shun protectionism in all its forms.
Singh is also likely to highlight the need for developed countries to bring about stabilisation of the banking and financial sectors as it affected exports, capital flows and investment of the emerging economies, Indian officials accompanying the Prime Minister said.
Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, National Security Adviser M K Narayanan, Finance Secretary Ashok Chawla are among the members of the Indian delegation attending the summit.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama are among the world leaders who will address the Summit.
The leaders will share assessments on how they plan to proceed in the coming months to deal with the situation, Indian Ambassador to the US Meera Shankar told reporters in Pittersberg.
According to FAO,the UN body, which will meet in Rome on
October 12-13 to deliberate upon the strategies on 'How to
feed the world in 2050', "world population is expected to grow
by over a third (or 2.3 billion people) between 2009 and
2050".
Therefore, feeding a world population of 9.1 billion in
2050 from the current 6.8 billion would require overall 70 per
cent surge in food production.
"The demand for food is expected to continue to grow as a
result of population growth and rising incomes," FAO said
while releasing the discussion paper for the meeting.
The demand for cereals (for food and animal feed) is
projected to reach some 3 billion tonnes by 2050. Annual
cereal production will have to grow by almost a billion tonnes
from the current 2 billion tonnes and meat output by over 200
million tonnes, it said.
The paper noted, "the production of biofuels could also
increase the demand for agricultural commodities, depending on
energy prices and government policies."
FAO's Assistant Director-General Hafez Ghanem pointed
that "feeding everyone in the world by then will not be
automatic and several significant challenges have to be met."
The UN body called for stronger interventions to make
faster progress towards reducing and finally eliminating the
number of hungry and poor people.
Obama's speech to the United Nations General Assembly
was "positive" and reflective of our stand, Israel's hawkish
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted as saying by
Ha'aretz.
"He also said something we had been seeking for six
months, that we have to meet and begin the diplomatic process
without preconditions," Netanyahu told the daily.
He also stressed that the US President had spoken
"clearly about Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish
people". "I believe that disagreement about this is the root
of the conflict," the Israeli premier said.
On the other hand, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
and members of his delegation to the UN were not very happy
with Obama's declaration that negotiations with Israel should
begin "without preconditions", however they were pleased with
his statement that Washington is pursuing a Palestinian state
based on the 1967 borders.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, who heads both the Palestine
Liberation Organisation's executive committee and the PA
negotiating team, said we welcome US President's decision to
hold another round of preliminary talks in the interest of
bridging the gaps between the two parties.
Describing the tests as "fully successful", Atomic Energy
Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Principal Scientific
Advisor to Government R Chidambaram said the controversy
triggered by K Santhanam, former DRDO scientist, was
"unnecessary".
The two scientists held a joint press conference seeking
to clear the air in the wake of Santhanam, who was the
coordinator for the 1998 tests, claiming that the
thermonuclear nuclear (hydrogen bomb) test was a failure.
"Rhetoric cannot be a substitute for good science,"
they said adding "unnecessary doubts have been created by
ex-colleagues" in an obvious reference to Santhanam and former
AEC chairman P K Ayengar who too raised doubts over the
efficacy of the test.
"There should be no doubt over the yield of the tests.
Once again, I would like to re-emphasise that the 1998 nuclear
tests were fully successful. We achieved all objectives in
toto," said Kakodkar.
Defending the thermonuclear test, Dr R Chidambaram said
that it was a success and the doubts voiced over it were
unjustified.
Santhanam had stuck to his assertions earlier this week
and was dismissive of National Security Advisor M.K.Narayanan
calling his statements incorrect and horrific.
"It (test) has given us the capability to build
deterrence based on both fission and thermonuclear weapon
systems from modest to all the way up to 200 kilotons and
possibility of meeting all our security requirements,"
Kakodkar, who was director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in
1998, said.
Chidambaram contended that in the last 11 years several
scientific peer reviews have been published explaining the
efficacy and yield.
"We scientists cannot go beyond that as proliferation
sensitive information cannot be divulged," said Chidambaram,
also a former AEC Chairman.
Disapproving Santhanam's claims, Chidambaram, who was
accompanied by several BARC scientists, including its director
S Banerjee, said, "the culture of science is to have
discussions in the scientific fora or peer reviewed scientific
journals and they should have understood the proliferation
sensitive nature of the information," he said.
"No one in this business would do that and our BARC
scientists are doing progressive work in the strategic area
for the past 11 years and we are confident about the design of
the device," he said.
Santhanam had also demanded an enquiry by an independent
panel of experts into the test results.
Explaining how the two-stage device needed a thorough
understanding of advanced seismology and radiochemistry,
Chidambaram said "our results were so accurate that we
disclosed the yield on the same day of the explosion."
The Obama Administration also hoped that the powerful
15-member body of the UN would endorse Washington's call for a
world without nuclear weapons contained in a US-drafted
resolution which is expected to be approved unanimously at the
Thursday summit in New York.
"The US position is that all countries should join the
NPT, and so the resolution will address that issue," a top US
Disarmament official Gary Samore told newsmen in Pittsburgh
which is hosting the G-20 Summit which is also being attended
by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The resolution is also expected to call on U.N. member
states to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
which would outlaw all nuclear tests. India is not a signatory
to the CTBT.
Obama will be the first US President to chair a
summit-level meeting of the Council in which 14 heads of state
will join him.
The tone for the crucial meeting was set by Obama, who
in his maiden address to the General Assembly yesterday told
nations who refuse to live up to their obligations on nuclear
non-proliferation must "face consequences."
The US resolution comes as a move to reinvigorate the
treaty which will be a subject of a crucial review in a
conference next year.
Samore, the National Security Council Coordinator for
Arms Control and Non Proliferation said the NPT is something
that "we would hope that the Council would endorse". Samore
said as of now, it is not illegal not to join.
Meanwhile,Six companies led by India-origin
people including banking behemoth Citigroup and soft drinks
major Pepsico have been named among the greenest American
companies by Newsweek magazine. The list of 500 Greenest big companies in the US
compiled by Newsweek is topped by technology bellwether
Hewlett-Packard. Among the firms led by India-origin individuals, three
companies have made it into the top 50, with software entity
Adobe Systems headed by Shantanu Narayen, ranked 16th. Mobile
phone maker Motorola has cornered the 21st spot, while Vikram
Pandit-led Citi is at the 24th place.India-origin Sanjay Jha is the co-CEO at Motorola.
Indra Nooyi-led Pepsico is ranked 119th while financial
services firm Hartford Financial Services and IT company
Cognizant Technology are at 303rd and 449th positions,
respectively.
Hartford Financial is headed by Ramani Ayer while
Francisco D'Souza is at the helm of Cognizant.
At the second place is technology major Dell, pharma firm
Johnson & Johnson is ranked third and technology entities --
Intel and IBM -- at the fourth and fifth spots, respectively.
The ranking is based on three factors -- environmental
impact score, green policies score and reputation score.
Other companies include McDonald's (22), Microsoft (31),
CB Richard Ellis (45), Coca-Cola (58), Wal-Mart (59), Yahoo!
(69), eBay (76), Google (79), General Electric (82), Apple
(133) and Washington Post (178).
"Our goal was to assess each company's actual resource
use and emissions and its policies and strategies, along with
its reputation among its peers.
"The 500 companies included in the ranking are the
largest US companies as measured by revenue, market
capitalisation and number of employees," the report said.
About Adobe, the magazine said the company has redesigned
its software packaging to include recyclable and sustainably-
sourced cardboard and significantly less dye.
According to the publication, Motorola encourages
suppliers to provide energy efficient and easily recyclable
products with low or no hazardous content.
"Purchases 20 per cent of its US electricity from
renewable sources," it added.
The publication said that Citi has invested USD 18
billion so far on a pledge of USD 50 billion towards
climate-change initiatives but information on Citi's financing
of carbon intensive projects remains closely guarded, but is
estimated to be much higher.
Commenting on the ranking, commercial real estate firm
CB Richard Ellis' Chairman and Managing Director (India)
Anshuman Magazine said the company is proud to be recognized
for its environmental policies and practices.
"In India and around the globe we are showing in our own
operations and our work with clients that sustainable
practices are good for both the environment and the bottom
line," Magazine said in a statement.
Markets may rise further in the next 6 months
Reuter reports:
Given that US stocks have rallied nearly 60 percent in just six months, you'd expect valuations were getting a bit prohibitive. Why realty is good investment
Key to maximising returns
How to gauge market movements
What moves the stock markets?
But the resiliency of the latest rally shows that investors are unfazed by the market's current multiples, regarding stocks as still relatively cheap.
With interest rates close to zero, earnings expected to improve in the third quarter, and inflation subdued, stock market bulls have much working in their favor, making it likely that the market will rise further in the next six months.
The Dow Jones industrial average is nearing 10,000, a far cry from its closing low of 6,547.05 in March. The benchmark S&P 500 .SPX -- up nearly 19 percent year-to-date -- has its sights set on 1,100 after closing at a 12-year low of 676.53 in March.
Low interest rates have revived the argument prevalent during the 'Goldilocks' period of the late 1990s and middle of this decade justifying higher valuation for shares.
"Stocks do remain relatively cheap," said Philip Orlando, senior portfolio manager at Federated Global Investment Management Corp in New York.
"Multiples right now are probably around 16 times forward earnings. But because we are looking at very low core inflation, roughly about 1.4 percent, and 10-year Treasury yields below 3.5 percent level, we can justify multiples that approach 20 times."
The current S&P 500's forward P/E implies $66.83 earnings per share, based on individual estimated operating earnings for the 500 companies. Back in early March, the S&P 500's forward P/E was about 11 times, which was below the historical average of 16 times.
Also working in the bulls favor has been the market's ability to rebound from every attempted sell-off since the start of the runup. That development, analysts say, also shows that investors were willing to use dips as opportunities to get into the market.
BETTER ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
To get an even more optimistic picture of how far the market has come, some analysts point to the S&P 500's trailing price-to-earnings ratio, based on past 12 months operating earnings.
That measure is at 20.6 times, up from 11 times in early March, according to Thomson Reuters data. That figure implies total trailing S&P 500 earnings of $51.97 per share.
"I don't think the market is overvalued," said Marc Pado, U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. in San Francisco.
"The economy is doing better than expected and gross domestic product is going to reflect that and profits are going to reflect that. The market was not adequately pricing in the strength of the third quarter," he added.
US economy 'picked up'; financial conditions improved: Fed
Signalling that the American economy is slowly coming out of the woods, the US Federal Reserve has said economic activity has picked up
in recent months.
The apex bank, while retaining key interest rates at near zero, observed that conditions in both financial and housing sectors have improved.
Grappling with one of the financial storms in decades, the recession-hit US economy has seen massive job losses and deteriorating financial situation with a GDP contraction of one per cent in the second quarter of 2009.
"Economic activity has picked up following its severe downturn. Conditions in financial markets have improved further and activity in the housing sector has increased," the Federal Open Market Committee said on Wednesday after its two-day monetary policy meeting.
Retaining the benchmark interest rates at near zero the US Fed noted that it would continue for a longer time. The key rates have been kept in the range of 0 to 0.25 per cent since December last year as part of the Federal government's efforts to kick start the nation's sagging economy.
The US Fed said it continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of federal funds rate for an extended period. According to the central bank, even though economic activity is likely to remain weak for some time, policy actions would help in bolstering economic growth.
The US Fed said household spending seems to be stabilising but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, sluggish income growth, lower housing wealth and tight credit. "Businesses are still cutting back on fixed investment and staffing, though at a slower pace...," it added.
Embarking on its initiatives to revive the economy, the US Fed would continue with its USD 1.45 trillion programme to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other assets.
The statement noted that the pace of buying would gradually slow down in order to promote a smooth transition in markets and "anticipates that they will be executed by the end of the first quarter of 2010".
These measures are aimed at supporting mortgage lending and housing markets, which are among the worst hit in the ongoing financial turmoil. The US Fed anticipates inflation to remain "subdued" for some more time.
NY Taj cancels Gaddafi booking
K.P. NAYAR
Muammar Gaddafi at the UN. (Below) A tent on a property owned by real estate magnate Donald Trump in New York. A tent was supposed to be pitched on the property for Gaddafi but authorities disallowed it. (Jay Mandal/On Assignment and AP pictures)
New York, Sept. 23: Even as the highest-profile segment of the 64th UN General Assembly opened here today with leaders such as US President Barack Obama and external affairs minister S.M. Krishna taking the podium, the session has been overshadowed, for the man in the street, by a huge controversy over the presence of one of the world's longest-serving and most mercurial leaders, Muammar Gaddafi.
This is Gaddafi's first visit to the US since he took power at the age of 27, exactly four decades ago.
Libya is president of the General Assembly for a year from this month and is an elected member of the UN Security Council, but Gaddafi has been unable to find any place to stay in New York this week.
In keeping with his unconventional lifestyle, Gaddafi, who likes to sleep in a bedouin tent, tried to pitch his sleeping quarters on the grounds of New York's famed Central Park, but the City of New York denied him permission to do so.
Ratan Tata's landmark hotel here, the Taj Pierre, accepted a booking for the "Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" and "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution", who has held no official state title for 30 of the 40 years that he has led Libya.
But when word got around and the hotel's long-time clients protested, the Tatas quickly cancelled the booking for Gaddafi. Taj Pierre would not comment on the record on the ground that guest bookings are confidential business.
The aborted choice of the Taj Pierre was actually the last resort for the Libyan strongman, according to a Libyan diplomat to the UN. His UN Mission earlier tried to pitch Gaddafi's tent at a property in the New Jersey town of Englewood.
Although that property is owned by the Libyan embassy, the US state department stepped in and banned erection of the tent there in the face of angry protests by residents of Englewood, many of whom are Jews.
"In keeping with prior arrangements, the Englewood, New Jersey, property is not available for any use in connection with" Gaddafi's visit, state department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
"Any use of this property other than the personal use of the Libyan ambassador and his family has to be reviewed by the state department," Kelly said.
Gaddafi has always been a hate figure among Americans, who view him as an enemy of the US and a promoter of terror and weapons of mass destruction. In 1986, then US President Ronald Reagan bombed what were thought to be Gaddafi's sleeping tents in Tripoli and Benghazi, killing, among others, Gaddafi's daughter, Hannah.
However, in recent years, Libya compromised with its Western enemies, allowed the inspection and dismantling of Libya's nuclear programme and was allowed back into the international community by the US and European Union countries.
Libya's presidency of the General Assembly and its election to the Security Council were the results of such acceptance.
Earlier this year, there were suggestions from Tripoli that Gaddafi might himself preside over the 64th General Assembly, but the proposal ran aground because he wanted to hand over the post mid-way to his son and heir apparent, Saif Al Islam.
Under UN rules, an individual has to be elected General Assembly president for an entire year. The post was eventually filled by Ali Abdussalam Treki, Libya's minister for African Union affairs.
Gaddafi's visit to New York this week was to have been the high point of Libya's return to the world order, but it has been spoiled by the controversy over his accommodation.
The trigger for the latest round of American protests was the release from a Scottish prison of a Libyan, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who was given a hero's welcome on his return to Libya in August.
Megrahi, who was convicted of bombing a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 killing 270 people, was released on compassionate grounds because of his terminal cancer.
After the Englewood fiasco, billionaire builder Donald Trump offered his estate in Bedford, 43 miles north of Manhattan, as a site for erecting Gaddafi's tent, but town authorities stepped in and ordered work to be stopped at the site on the flimsy ground that no permits were sought for building a temporary residence on the estate.
Several Manhattan hotels then refused to book the Libyan leader.
At one point, Libyan diplomats here, desperate for a roof for Gaddafi under Manhattan's skyline, pretended to be Dutch diplomats and inquired about renting a six-storey townhouse. They were quickly discovered to be Arabs because of their accents.
The Libyan leader will now stay at his country's Permanent Mission to the UN, which is an office and does not have residential facilities.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/jsp/frontpage/story_11535082.jsp
Flow of food supplies
A STAFF REPORTER
Sugar and pulses worth Rs 250 crore have started to move out of a Calcutta Port Trust godown after rotting for over 10 weeks as the prices of the items shot up in the market.
"After the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) certified that the consignment was fit for consumption, 702 tonnes of pulses and 181 tonnes of sugar were handed over to importers on Tuesday," Anindya Majumdar, the port trust chairman, said on Wednesday.
Over 1 lakh tonnes of pulses and 350 tonnes of sugar in the godown are yet to be cleared.
Metro had highlighted on September 19 (see above) how the delay in obtaining the clearance was keeping the sugar and pulses from reaching the market, adding to the demand-supply mismatch.
"There has been a public outcry. The stock needs to reach the market as soon as possible. We have asked the ministry to expedite the clearance process," added Majumdar.
Subrata Saha, the secretary of the CFL employees' association, denied that the laboratory was responsible for the delay. The in-charge of the laboratory was unavailable for comment.
Saha, however, admitted that employees had been agitating since January against a government plan to turn the laboratory into an autonomous body. "The agitation has not affected our work," he claimed.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/jsp/calcutta/story_11533117.jsp
Pranab's call for biz bond
- Message of political cooperation on Rajarhat platform
A STAFF REPORTER
Pranab Mukherjee at Rajarhat. (Sanat Sinha)
The day after Trinamul minister Mukul Ray staged a walkout to avoid being on the same chamber of commerce dais as two CPM ministers, Congress veteran Pranab Mukherjee used a business platform to stress the need for political cooperation for the sake of development.
The Union finance minister was speaking at the inauguration of the Ambuja Realty part of the Ecospace business park at Rajarhat. "There is bound to be divergence of views in politics but we must have a spirit of co-operation and understanding where development is concerned," said Mukherjee.
There was no one around from the Congress's largest ally to pay heed, as local Trinamul MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar chose not to turn up to share the dais with the CPM's Gautam Deb, Debesh Das and Rabin Mandal, and the Congress's Mukherjee and Sachin Pilot. This was in keeping with Mukul Ray's claim on Tuesday that the party had decided not to share a platform with CPM ministers or leaders at "private" events.
The "private" event at Rajarhat marked the first phase of the 20-acre Ecospace, where companies like HDFC and L&T Voith have booked space. The "green building" with multi-level car park, advanced fire protection, energy efficient equipment and intelligent infrastructure aims to provide "a work-life balance".
But no balance between political rivalry and development was visible on Wednesday with the state's housing minister Gautam Deb blaming the Trinamul for creating pockets of resistance in Rajarhat preventing the setting up of electric poles and denying large parts of the township.
Ecospace is a case in powerless point, with 50 per cent of the power supply dependent on generators. "Once it is fully occupied, the power situation could call the viability of the project into question," admitted Harsh Neotia, the chairman of Ambuja Realty.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/jsp/calcutta/story_11534817.jsp
Some US bailout funds won't be recovered: Watchdog
24 Sep 2009, 1035 hrs IST, REUTERS
WASHINGTON: US taxpayers will probably never recover all of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested to bail out financial firms, automakers and
homeowners, a key watchdog for the program said on Thursday.
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the U.S. Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), said in prepared U.S. Senate testimony that the bailout fund played a significant role in stabilizing the financial system, but it may never fulfill certain policy goals.
"The progress on meeting the goal of 'maximizing overall returns to the taxpayer' is unclear," Barofsky said in testimony to be delivered to the Senate Banking Committee.
"While several TARP recipients have repaid funds for what has widely been reported as a 17 percent profit, it is extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will see a full return on its TARP investment."
For example, $50 billion in funds allocated to modify mortgages to reduce monthly payments will never yield a direct return, while full recovery of the more than $80 billion spent to prop up the U.S. auto industry "is far from certain," Barofsky said.
According to the inspector general's analysis, Treasury has earmarked $699 billion of the funds to 12 different programs, including a $134.5 billion cushion of funds available for future use. It has disbursed or committed to disburse $445 billion.
The program, approved by Congress in early October 2008, was originally intended to buy up the toxic assets weighing down bank balance sheets, but within two weeks idea was quickly dropped in favor of direct capital injections into banks as the financial crisis reached its peak.
Barofsky, who took office in December 2008, said the Treasury has improved its transparency in administering the program, but has repeatedly failed to implement his recommendations to increase disclosures, including detailed reports on what banks are doing with taxpayer funds.
"We remain puzzled as to why Treasury refuses to adopt our recommendations to report on each TARP recipient's use of TARP funds."
Barofsky also said that Treasury also has refused to adopt regular disclosures of borrowers that fail to repay loans obtained through a Federal Reserve securities lending program aimed at easing pressures in consumer credit markets.
He also said the Treasury does not intend to disclose trading activities, holdings and aset valuations in so-called public-private investment partnerships that are being created to buy troubled assets. About three quarters of the $40 billion in nine funds will be supplied by the Treasury.
In response, Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the department has implemented the "vast majority" of Barofsky's recommendations and has included the inspector general early in the development of many programs.
Williams said the Treasury will soon expand its quarterly TARP lending reports to include data recommended by Barofsky in a survey of lenders, such as financial institutions' aggregate repayments of their outstanding debt obligations and total investments.
A tiny tax could do a world of good
24 Sep 2009, 1350 hrs IST, New York Times
As leaders of the world's largest economies gather today in Pittsburgh for the Group of 20 meeting, people in the world's poorest countries will
likely look on with a mix of hope and trepidation, wondering whether their needs will figure in the deliberations at all. The G-20 nations could help both the poor and the global economy by fully financing lagging efforts to fight poverty and disease worldwide, and the best way to do this would be to impose a very small tax on the prosperous foreign exchange industry.
The eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals – which include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, establishing universal primary education, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and combating AIDS, malaria and other diseases – are meant to be reached by 2015. Morally and practically, the world must try harder to keep these promises. President Obama has made it clear that the United States has, in his words, "a responsibility to protect the health of our people, while saving lives, reducing suffering and supporting the health and dignity of people everywhere."
Disease takes an enormous toll on economic growth: It sidelines or kills productive workers and causes tremendous suffering. Take, for instance, tuberculosis, an illness that with the right treatment can usually be cured. In 2007, it killed nearly 1.8 million people, more than 600 times the number who have died from H1N1 swine flu. The World Bank estimates that tuberculosis has caused the gross domestic product in some countries to fall as much as 7 percent.
Or consider maternal health. About 530,000 women worldwide die each year from pregnancy-related causes, most of them preventable, and millions more suffer injuries or develop lifelong disabilities. A serious effort to reduce those numbers would bring real economic gains. Improvements in the health of Asian women and children accounted for a significant share of that continent's economic growth from 1965 to 1990.
Unfortunately, though, there is an enormous shortfall in the level of outside aid needed to reach the goals the world has set. Donor countries, including the wealthiest of the G-20, are providing only 0.3 percent of their combined income in development aid. Although the donor countries have made commitments to provide more money, they are not giving it fast enough to tackle runaway health problems, including the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens that threaten people across the globe.
The one untapped source that could easily provide the amount of money needed is the foreign currency market, which handles almost $800 trillion in trades annually, all of which is untaxed. A tiny levy of 0.005 percent on transactions involving the world's most traded currencies – the dollar, the euro, the pound and the yen – would raise more than $33 billion annually for development, while not hurting the market or affecting the average international traveler.
The tax could be collected automatically by the computer system that handles foreign exchange transactions – so it would be easy to put into place, and impossible to evade. And because not all currencies would be taxed, only the countries whose currencies would be affected would need to consent. France already supports the idea, and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has signaled her willingness to consider it.
We have already seen what innovative taxation can do to save lives, with sufficient political will. Since 2005, France and 10 other countries have collected a small tax on airline tickets (in France, it amounts to only $1 to $5 per ticket). And this has, without hurting the airline industry, raised about $700 million – enough to finance three-quarters of the AIDS treatment now being received by the world's H.I.V.-positive children. Unitaid, the international organization that I lead and that manages the money from the airline tax, has also been able to negotiate 50 percent to 60 percent reductions in the price of pediatric anti-retroviral drugs in low-income countries.
How should the proceeds of a foreign exchange transaction tax be managed? One model is the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which holds medical programs in more than 100 countries to high performance standards, and can withhold financing when money is not used properly.
The banking industry has so far managed to keep currency trading untaxed, but this industry, which has so recently been dependent on government aid, has a duty to give back. President Obama has reminded Wall Street leaders about what he called their "obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system and a more broadly shared prosperity." The same principle applies internationally. President Obama and other G-20 leaders should harness the mighty foreign exchange market in the service of better health for all.
(The author of this article, Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister from 2005 to 2007, is the chairman of Unitaid and a special adviser to the UN secretary general on innovative financing.)
Moody's may bear brunt of rating agency mistrust
24 Sep 2009, 0938 hrs IST, REUTERS
NEW YORK: Rating agency Moody's Corp may bear the brunt of regulatory scrutiny of the industry, after a former analyst sent congressional
investigators a memo stating that the company knowingly assigned incorrect ratings to a security as recently as this year, according to a source familiar with the memo.
Moody's, along with other major rating agencies McGraw-Hill's Standard & Poor's and Fimalac SA's Fitch Ratings, are in regulators' sights for fueling the two-year-old financial crisis by assigning high ratings to mortgage-backed securities. A House committee will hear testimony on ratings firm reform on Thursday.
While the three have all made changes in a bid to appease regulators, the allegations of the former analyst -- who will testify before the committee -- could prove a further blow to embattled Moody's, which lately has seen its share price drop much faster than that of its peers after a slew of bad publicity.
Since the beginning of September, Moody's shares have dropped 25 percent; McGraw-Hill is down 23 percent and Fimalac is up 1.4 percent.
The New York-based ratings company attracted more attention than its rivals after first declining to attend a hearing held by insurance regulators to discuss improving the ratings process. It later reversed the decision, but its shares fell 5.7 percent on Monday.
"It's the kind of thing that just makes them look bad," said James Gellert, chief executive of Rapid Ratings, a smaller rival to Moody's that charges investors a fee for its research rather than charging issuers, as Moody's, S&P and Fitch do.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway earlier this month trimmed its stake in Moody's to 16.6 percent from 17 percent. The stake had been 20.4 percent in mid-July.
Moody's shares closed down 8.4 percent on Tuesday at $20.49.
KOLCHINSKY
Adding to Moody's difficulties, Eric Kolchinsky, a managing director at the company who has now been suspended, will tell the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Moody's senior managers still favor revenue over ratings, according to testimony obtained by Reuters.
The firm's credit policy group is weak and short-staffed and its analysts are "bullied" by managers who override their decisions to generate revenue, Kolchinsky said in the testimony.
"Moody's is committed to upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and analytical integrity," said Michael Adler, a spokesman for Moody's in an emailed statement.
"Moody's takes seriously all allegations of potential impropriety," Adler wrote, adding that the company is reviewing Kolchinsky's latest claims and will not comment on the reasons for his paid suspension.
The emergence of a whistle-blower, combined with the company's reversal on its appearance at the insurers' hearing, has led some industry experts to believe that Moody's may attract more attention from regulators than its peers.
Investors retreat as post-fed rally quickly fades
24 Sep 2009, 1340 hrs IST, New York Times
Wall Street got an initial lift on Wednesday from the Federal Reserve's assessment that an economic recovery was under way, but the glow faded fast,
dragging stocks to their second day of losses this week.
The Dow Jones industrial average briefly crossed 9,900 points after the Fed released its statement at 2:15 p.m., but then a spree of selling pulled the market into the red. Financial firms led the way lower, and oil producers and industrial stocks slid as commodity prices dipped.
While investors found few surprises in the Fed's words, the statement still offered some support for the prevailing economic outlook.
"The Fed statement didn't really change anything," said Nick Kalivas, vice president of financial research at MF Global. "They went out of their way not to rock the boat."
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 81.32 points, or 0.8 percent, to close at 9,748.55. The broader Standard & Poor's 500-stock index lost 10.79 points, or 1 percent, to end at 1,060.87, while the Nasdaq composite index slipped 14.88 points, or 0.7 percent, to 2,131.42.
With no striking revelations from the Fed, investors homed in on nagging questions about whether stocks had become too expensive. The price-to-earnings ratio of the S&P 500, a broad measure of how stocks are priced compared with corporate profits, rose to its highest point in a year this week, according to Bloomberg News data.
In a regular Wall Street ritual, investors and analysts scoured a statement from the Fed as its Open Market Committee concluded a two-day meeting, seeking the central bank's views on the prospects for inflation, interest rates and other aspects of the economy.
"Economic activity has picked up following its severe downturn," the Fed wrote in its statement. "Conditions in financial markets have improved further, and activity in the housing sector has increased."
As expected, the Fed left its key short-term interest rate untouched at a record low of close to zero, and it announced it would extend its program to buy more than $1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities to March 31.
Investors do not expect the Fed to lift its overnight federal funds rate until next year, given the huge challenges facing the economy as it tries to climb out of a deep recession. Unemployment is heading toward 10 percent, factories are still running at well under full capacity and credit markets are still fragile.
The prices of inflation-resistant investments fell on Wednesday as the Fed said that rapidly rising prices were not a threat, predicting that inflation would remain "subdued" for a while. Crude oil fell $2.79 a barrel, to $68.97, on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and gold and copper prices also slipped.
But investors grabbed up Treasury notes after the Fed released its statement, heartened by expectations of low inflation.
Yields on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note had been higher for much of the day after an auction of five-year notes drew lackluster response, but yields dropped after the Fed's announcement as investors speculated that lengthening out the mortgage-purchase program would help to keep interest rates low.
"The mortgage market is such a huge driver of rates," said George Goncalves, head of fixed-income strategy at Cantor Fitzgerald. "You have another large investor that hasn't gone away."
But Fed officials said the economy was continuing to improve, albeit slowly, leaving open the question of how and when the bank would begin to withdraw its emergency financing programs.
UN fights to ban the bomb for a safer world
;David Usborne & Andrew Grice
NEW YORK, 23 SEPT: The leaders of the world's greatest powers, including Prime Minister Mr Gordon Brown, are set tomorrow to endorse President Barack Obama's ambitious goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. According to the final draft of a resolution to be put to a rare summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the leaders will resolve "to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons".
In an overt show of support, Mr Brown will unveil plans to cut the number of Trident nuclear submarines from four to three. The Prime Minister will tell the special session of the Security Council, which also includes the leaders of France, Russia and China, that he is "prepared to consider" the move. President Obama convened the extraordinary summit-level session of the Council to give impetus to his mission to denuclearise the planet as the crisis surrounding Iran and North Korea and their rush to acquire atomic weapons appears to be deepening. The text of the resolution, seen by The Independent, is likely to be hailed as a breakthrough by campaigning groups. President Obama first spelled out his dream of counting down to a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague at the end of March. For his proposal now to be adopted formally by the UN Security Council amounts to a significant endorsement by the world's leading powers. Tomorrow will see only the fifth Council meeting at heads-of-government level n and the first with a US President in the chair.
"The only way to eliminate the nuclear threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons," former US Ambassador Mr Thomas Pickering of the Global Zero campaigning group said last night. "The Security Council's endorsement of this goal would be another great step toward an international consensus on working together to achieve this important objective."
In Britain, Trident is due to be upgraded in a 25bn$ programme approved by the government before Tony Blair stood down and with Mr Brown's backing. The UK's arsenal of warheads has already been cut from 200 to 160 and scrapping one boat would not mean it could be cut further as the Government's policy is to retain the minimum number needed for an effective deterrent. The draft Security Council resolution also congratulates the commitment made by the USA and Russia to cut their arsenals further as they renegotiate the 1991 START treaty that is soon to expire.
Also in the text are clear warnings to Iran and North Korea as they continue to defy calls to relinquish their nuclear programmes.
;The Independent
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Signed - location | 10 September 1996 New York City |
| Effective - condition | Not yet in force 180 days after it is ratified by all 44 Annex 2 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, North Korea, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam |
| Signatories | 181 |
| Parties | 150 (including 35 of 44 Annex 2 states) |
| Website | http://www.ctbto.org/ |
| Annex 2, signed and ratified Annex 2, only signed Annex 2, non-signatory | Not Annex 2, signed and ratified Not Annex 2, only signed Not Annex 2, non-signatory |
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996 but it has not yet entered into force.[1]
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Status
The Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996.[1] It opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996,[1] when it was signed by 71 States, including five of the eight then nuclear-capable states. As of September 2009, 150 states have ratified the CTBT and another 32 states have signed but not yet ratified it.[1][2]
The treaty will enter into force 180 days after the 44 states listed in Annex 2 of the treaty have ratified it. These "Annex 2 states" are states that participated in the CTBT's negotiations between 1994 and 1996 and possessed nuclear power reactors or research reactors at that time.[3] As of April 2009, nine Annex 2 states have not ratified the treaty: China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and the United States have already signed the Treaty, whereas India, North Korea and Pakistan have not yet signed it.
[edit] Obligations
(Article I):[4]
- Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
- Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.
[edit] History
Arms control advocates had campaigned for the adoption of a treaty banning all nuclear explosions since the early 1950s, when public concern was aroused as a result of radioactive fall-out from atmospheric nuclear tests and the escalating arms race. Over 50 nuclear explosions were registered between 16 July 1945, when the first nuclear explosive test was conducted by the United States at Alamogordo, New Mexico, and 31 December 1953. Prime Minister Nehru of India voiced the heightened international concern in 1954, when he proposed the elimination of all nuclear test explosions worldwide. However, within the context of the Cold War, skepticism about the capability to verify compliance with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty posed a major obstacle to any agreement.
[edit] Partial Test Ban Treaty, 1963
Limited success was achieved with the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. Neither France nor China signed the PTBT. However, the treaty was ratified 80 to 19.[5]
[edit] Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, 1968
A major step towards non-proliferation of nuclear weapons came with the signing of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. Under the NPT, non-nuclear weapon states were prohibited from, inter alia, possessing, manufacturing or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All signatories, including nuclear weapon states, were committed to the goal of total nuclear disarmament.
[edit] Negotiations for the CTBT
Given the political situation prevailing in the subsequent decades, little progress was made in nuclear disarmament until 1991. Parties to the PTBT held an amendment conference that year to discuss a proposal to convert the Treaty into an instrument banning all nuclear-weapon tests; with strong support from the UN General Assembly, negotiations for a comprehensive test-ban treaty began in 1993.
[edit] Adoption of the CTBT, 1996
Intensive efforts were made over the next three years to draft the Treaty text and its two annexes. However, the Conference on Disarmament, in which negotiations were being held, did not succeed in reaching consensus on the adoption of the text. Australia then sent the text to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where it was submitted as a draft resolution.[6] On 10 September 1996, the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was adopted by a large majority, exceeding two-thirds of the General Assembly's Membership.[7]
[edit] US ratification of the CTBT
The US has signed the CTBT, but not ratified it. There is ongoing debate whether or not the US should ratify the CTBT. Proponents of ratification claim that it would:
- Establish an international norm that would push other nuclear-capable countries like North Korea, Pakistan, and India to sign.
- Constrain worldwide nuclear proliferation by vastly limiting a country's ability to make nuclear advancements that only testing can ensure.
- Not compromise US national security because the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship Program serves as a means for maintaining current US nuclear capabilities without physical detonation.
On 13 October 1999, the United States Senate rejected ratification of the CTBT. President Barack Obama stated during his 2008 election campaign that "As president, I will reach out to the Senate to secure the ratification of the CTBT at the earliest practical date."[8]
[edit] Monitoring of the CTBT
Geophysical and other technologies are used to monitor for compliance with the Treaty: seismology, hydroacoustics, infrasound, and radionuclide monitoring. The technologies are used to monitor the underground, the waters and the atmosphere for any sign of a nuclear explosion. Statistical theories and methods are integral to CTBT monitoring providing confidence in verification analysis. Once the Treaty enters into force, on site inspection will be provided for where concerns about compliance arise.
The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), an international organization headquartered in Vienna, Austria, was created to build the verification regime, including establishment and provisional operation of the network of monitoring stations, the creation of an international data centre, and development of the On Site Inspection capability.
The monitoring network consists of 337 facilities located all over the globe. As of September 2009, close to 250 facilities have been certified. The monitoring stations register data that is transmitted to the international data centre in Vienna for processing and analysis. The data is sent to states that have signed the Treaty.[9]
[edit] See also
- National Technical Means
- Nuclear proliferation
- Nuclear disarmament
- Nuclear weapon
- Nuclear warfare
- Nuclear-free zone
- Global Security Institute
[edit] References
 | This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (June 2008) |
- ^ a b c d United Nations Treaty Collection (2009). "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty". Accessed 23 August 2009.
- ^ Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Orgainzation (2008). "Status of Signature and Ratification". Accessed 4 April 2009.
- ^ "CTBTO Preparatory Commission", CTBO Press Centre
- ^ COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY, CTBTO
- ^ "1963 Year In Review"
- ^ http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=X204697124L65.19785&profile=bibga&uri=full=3100001~!396802~!33&ri=1&aspect=power&menu=search&source=~!horizon#focus
- ^ http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-245.htm
- ^ "Nuclear Testing Is an Acceptable Risk for Arms Control", Scientific American, March 2009.
- ^ http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/press-releases/2009/us-nuclear-security-administrator-dagostinovisits-the-ctbto/
- Full text of the treaty
- For official news releases and information on the treaty see – http://www.ctbto.org
- Two articles from the March/April Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists cover the state of play regarding the CTBT: Keith Hansen, "Forecasting the future" and Trevor Findlay & Andreas Persbo, "Watching the world."
- The Test Ban Test: U.S. Rejection has Scuttled the CTBT
- Nuclear Files.org Text of the CTBT
- US conducts subcritical nuclear test ABC News, February 24, 2006
- International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, 1991
- Daryl Kimball and Christine Kucia, Arms Control Association, 2002
- "Low-Yield Earth Penetrating Nuclear Weapons"
- General John M. Shalikashvili, Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- Christopher Paine, Senior Researcher with NRDC's Nuclear Program, 1999
- Fact Sheet released by the Bureau of Arms Control
- Obama or McCain Can Finish Journey to Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
India and weapons of mass destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| India | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Nuclear program start date | 1967 |
| First nuclear weapon test | 18 May 1974 (Smiling Buddha) |
| First fusion weapon test | 11 May 1998 |
| Last nuclear test | 13 May 1998 |
| Largest yield test | *Underground - 20 Kt Total in Pokhran-II [1] minimum (May 11, 1998) |
| Total tests | 6 |
| Current stockpile | 45-95 (2009 est.) |
| Maximum missile range | 2,500km (Agni-II) |
| NPT signatory | No |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
India possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons and maintains short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable aircraft, surface ships, and submarines under development as possible delivery systems and platforms. Although it lacks an operational ballistic missile submarines India has ambitions of possessing a nuclear triad in the near future when INS Arihant the lead ship of India's Arihant class of nuclear-powered submarines formally joins the Indian Navy in 2012 after undergoing extensive sea-trials. Though India has not made any official statements about the size of its nuclear arsenal, estimates suggest that India has between 40 and 95 nuclear weapons,[2][3] consistent with estimates that it has produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for up to 1000 nuclear weapons.[4] Production of weapons-grade plutonium production is believed to be taking place at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, which is home to the CIRUS reactor acquired from Canada, to the indigenous Dhruva reactor, and to a plutonium separation facility.
India has never signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it rejects as discriminatory.[5] India tested what it called a "peaceful nuclear explosive" in 1974 (which became known as "Smiling Buddha"). This test raised questions about how civilian nuclear technology could be diverted secretly to weapons purposes. The test also caused great international concern and anger, particularly from Canada, which had supplied India with power and research reactors for peaceful purposes, including the reactor used to produce the plutonium for this test.[6] The test appears to have been primarily motivated as a general deterrent, as well as an attempt to project India as regional power.[citation needed] India later tested weaponized nuclear warheads in 1998 ("Operation Shakti"), including a claimed thermonuclear device that was reported to have been a failure.[7]
India signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1993 and ratified it in 1996. After years of denying it had chemical weapons, in 1997 India declared a stockpile of mustard gas, which it destroyed by 2009, as required by the CWC.[8]
Contents[hide]
|
[edit] Brief historical overview
.jpeg)
As early as June 26, 1946, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, soon to be India's first Prime Minister, announced:
| " | As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.[9] | " |
India's first Nuclear test occurred on 18 May 1974. Since then India has conducted another series of test at the Pokhran test range in the state of Rajasthan in 1998. India has an extensive civil and military nuclear program, which includes at least 10 nuclear reactors, uranium mining and milling sites, heavy water production facilities, a uranium enrichment plant, fuel fabrication facilities, and extensive nuclear research capabilities.
In 1998, as a response to the continuing tests, the United States and Japan imposed temporary economic sanctions on India.
[edit] Current arsenal and estimates of inventory
- It is estimated that India currently has between 45 and 100 warheads.[2]
- In November 2008, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that India has about 70 assembled nuclear warheads, with about 50 of them fully operational.[10]
- David Albright's report published by Institute for Science and International Security on 2000 estimates that India at end of 1999 had 310 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium which is enough for 65 nuclear weapons. He also estimates that India has 4,200 kg of reactor grade plutonium which is enough to build 1,000 nuclear weapons.[3][11] By the end of 2004, he estimates India had 445 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium which is enough for around 85 nuclear weapons considering 5 kg of plutonium required for each weapon[12]
- Former R&AW official J.K. Sinha, claimed that India has capability to produce 130 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium from six unsafeguarded reactors not included in the nuclear deal between India and the United States.[13]
[edit] Doctrine
India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine[14] which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only". The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s).'"[14]
According to the NRDC, despite the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001-2002, India remains committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy.
[edit] Command and control
India's Strategic Nuclear Command was formally established in 2003, with an Air Force officer, Air Marshal Asthana, as the Commander-in-Chief. The joint services SNC is the custodian of all of India's nuclear weapons, missiles and assets. It is also responsible for executing all aspects of India's nuclear policy. However, the civil leadership, in the form of the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) is the only body authorized to order a nuclear strike against another offending strike: In effect, it is the Prime Minister who has his finger "on the button."
[edit] International treaties
India is not a signatory to either the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), but did accede to the Partial Test Ban Treaty in October 1963. India is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and four of its 17 nuclear reactors are subject to IAEA safeguards.
India announced its lack of intention to accede to the NPT as late as 1997 by voting against the paragraph of a General Assembly Resolution[15] which urged all non-signatories of the treaty to accede to it at the earliest possible date.[16]
India voted against the UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the CTBT, which was adopted on September 10, 1996. India objected to the lack of provision for universal nuclear disarmament "within a time-bound framework." India also demanded that the treaty ban laboratory simulations. In addition, India opposed the provision in Article XIV of the CTBT that requires India's ratification for the treaty to enter into force, which India argued was a violation of its sovereign right to choose whether it would sign the treaty. In early February 1997, Foreign Minister Gujral reiterated India's opposition to the treaty, saying that "India favors any step aimed at destroying nuclear weapons, but considers that the treaty in its current form is not comprehensive and bans only certain types of tests."
In August 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved safeguards agreement with India under which the former will gradually gain access to India's civilian nuclear reactors.[17] In September 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers Group granted India a waiver allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.[18] The implementation of this waiver makes India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the NPT but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[19]
Since the implementation of NSG waiver, India has signed nuclear deals with several countries including France,[20] United States,[21],Mongolia, Namibia[22], and Kazakhstan[23] while the framework for similar deals with Canada and United Kingdom are also being prepared.[24][25]
[edit] Delivery systems
Below is the list of missiles currently in India's inventory or under development that can carry Nuclear Warheads. Information on the missiles is given below.
| India's Nuclear Capable Missiles | ||||
| Name | Class | Range | Payload | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agni-I | SRBM | 850 km | 1,000 kg | Operational |
| Agni-II | MRBM | 2,500 km | 500 kg - 1,000 kg | Operational |
| Agni-III | IRBM | 3,500 km - 5,500 km | 2,490 kg | Under Development |
| Agni-V | ICBM | 5,000 km - 6,000 km | 3,000 kg+ | Under Development |
| Agni 3SL | ICBM | 5,200 km - 11,600 km | 700 kg - 1,400 kg | Under Development |
| Akash | SAM | 30 km | 60 kg | Operational |
| BrahMos-I | Supersonic Cruise Missile | 290 km | 300 kg | Operational |
| BrahMos-II | Hypersonic Cruise Missile | ? | ? | Under Development |
| Dhanush | SRBM | 350 km | 500 kg | Operational |
| Nirbhay | Subsonic Cruise Missile | 1,000 km | ? | Under Development |
| P-70 Ametist | Anti-shipping Missile | 65 km | 530 kg | Operational |
| P-270 Moskit | Supersonic Cruise Missile | 120 km | 320 kg | Operational |
| Popeye | ASM | 78 km | 340 kg | Operational |
| Prithvi-I | SRBM | 150 km | 1000 kg | Operational |
| Prithvi-II | SRBM | 250 km | 500 kg | Operational |
| Prithvi-III | SRBM | 350 km | 500 kg | Operational |
| Sagarika | SLBM | 700 km - 2,200 km | 150 kg - 1000 kg | Operational |
| Shaurya | SSBM | 700 km - 2,200 km | 150 kg - 1,000 kg | Operational |
| Surya-I | ICBM | 9,000 km - 12,000 km | 3,000 kg+ | Under Development |
| Surya-II[26] | ICBM | 20,000 km | ? | Under Development |
[edit] Ballistic missiles
Under former president Dr. Abdul Kalam India pursued the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP) which was an Indian Ministry of Defense program for the development of a comprehensive range of missiles, including the intermediate range Agni missile (Surface to Surface), and short range missiles such as the Prithvi ballistic missile (Surface to Surface), Akash missile (Surface to Air), Trishul missile (Surface to Air) and Nag Missile (Anti Tank). Other projects such Indian Ballistic Missile Defense Program have derived from the IGMDP. In 2005, India became only the fourth country to have Anti Ballistic capability when India tested two systems the AAD and PAD.
India has methodically built an indigenous missile production capability, using its commercial space-launch program to develop the skills and infrastructure needed to support an offensive ballistic missile program. For example, during the 1980s, India conducted a series of space launches using the solid-fueled SLV-3 booster. Most of these launches put light satellites into near-earth orbit. Elements of the SLV-3 were subsequently incorporated into two new programs. In the first, the new polar-space launch vehicle (PSLV) was equipped with six SLV-3 motors strapped to the PSLV's first stage. The Agni IRBM technology demonstrator uses the SLV-3 booster as its first stage.
[edit] Prithvi
The Prithvi (Hindi: "Earth") I is mobile liquid-fueled 150 kilometer tactical missile currently deployed with army units. It is claimed that this missile is equipped only with various conventional warheads (which stay attached to the missile over the entire flight path). The missile is of particular interest to the United States (and potential buyers) in that has the capability of maneuvering in flight so as to follow one of several different pre-programmed trajectories. Based on the same design, a modified Prithvi, the Prithvi II, is essentially a longer-ranged version of the Prithvi I except that it has a 250-kilometer range and a lighter payload. It is suspected that any nuclear missions will be executed by the Prithvi II. Currently, the Prithvi II has completed development and is now in production. When fielded, it will be deployed with air force units for the purpose of deep target attacking maneuvers against objectives such as air fields.
- Prithvi I — Army Version (150 km range with a payload of 1,000 kg)
- Prithvi II — Air Force Version (250 km range with a payload of 500 kg)
- Prithvi III — Naval Version (350 km range with a payload of 500 kg)
The Prithvi missile project encompassed developing 3 variants for use by the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. The initial project framework of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program outlines the variants in the following manner.
[edit] Dhanush
Dhanush (Sanskrit: Bow) is a naval variant of the Prithvi missile.[27] It can fire either the 250 km or the 350 km range missiles. Supposedly it is a customised version of the Prithvi and that the additional customizations in missile configuration are to certify it for sea worthiness. Dhanush has to be launched from a hydraulically stabilized launch pad. Its low range acts against it and thus it is seen a weapons either to be used to destroy an aircraft carrier or an enemy port. Indian Navy's K-15 Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missile is reported to be a variant of the Dhanush missile.[28]
The ship launched Dhanush Ballistic Missile was tested from INS Subhadra of the Sukanya class patrol craft in 2000. INS Subhadra is a vessel which was modified and the missile was launched from the reinforced helicopter deck. The 250 km variant was tested but the tests were considered partially successful.[29] In 2004, the missile was again tested from the INS Subhadra and was this time successful.[30] Then the following year in December the missile's 350 km version was tested from the INS Rajput and hit the land based target. [31]
[edit] Agni
The Agni (Sanskrit: Fire) missile system comprises three missiles:
Agni-I uses the SLV-3 booster (from India's space program) for its first stage and a liquid-fueled Prithvi for its second stage.[32]
Nuclear-capable Agni-II missiles have a range of up to 3,000 km and can carry a payload of 1,000 kg.[33] Unlike the Agni-I, the Agni-II has a solid-fueled second stage.[34]
In July 2006, India successfully test-fired Agni-III,[35] a two-stage nuclear-capable ballistic missile with a range of 3,000 km.[36] Both stages of the Agni-III utilizes solid-fuel propellants and its range can be extended to 4,000 km.[37] The missile is capable of carrying a nuclear payload within the range of 600 to 1,800 kg including decoys and other anti-ballistic counter-measures.[38]
India's DRDO also working on a submarine-launched ballistic missile version of the Agni-III missile, known as the Agni-III SL. This missile is expected to provide India with a credible sea-based second strike capability. According to Indian defense sources, Agni-III SL will have a range of 3,500 km. [39] In addition, the 5,000 km range Agni-V ICBM is expected to be tested by 2010-11.[40]
[edit] Surya
 | This article contains predictions, speculative material or accounts of events that might not occur. Please help improve it by removing speculative content. (May 2009) |
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009) |
The Surya ICBM is an ICBM program that has been mentioned repeatedly in the Indian press but is yet to be officially announced. Surya (meaning Sun in Sanskrit and many other Indian languages) is the codename for the first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile that India is reported to be developing. The DRDO is believed to have begun the project in 1994. Officials of the Indian government have repeatedly denied the existence of the project. According to news reports, the Surya-1 is an intercontinental-range, surface-based, solid and liquid propellant ballistic missile. The Surya-1 and -2 will be classified as strategic weapons, extending the Indian nuclear deterrent force to targets around the world. India currently is limited by the range of the Agni-3 missile.
As the missile is yet to be developed, the specifications of the missile are not known and the entire program continues to remain highly speculative.[41] Estimates of the range of this missile vary from 5,000 kms[42] to 10,000 kms.[43] It is believed to be a three-stage design, with the first two stages using solid propellants and the third-stage using liquid. In 2007, the Times of India reported that the DRDO is yet to reveal whether India's currently proposed ICBM will be called Agni-V (or Surya-1).[42]
[edit] Shaurya
The Shaurya missile (Sanskrit: Valour) is a short-range surface-to-surface ballistic missile developed by DRDO of India for use by the Indian Army. It has a range of 600 km and is capable of carrying a payload of one-tonne conventional or nuclear warhead. The Shaurya missile provides India with a significant second strike capability[44]. Shaurya Missile is considered a land version of the Sagarika. This missile is stored in a composite canister just like the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. The composite canister makes the missile much easier to store for long periods without maintenance as well as to handle and transport. It also houses the gas generator to eject the missile from the canister before its solid propellant motors take over to hurl it at the intended target. Shaurya missiles can remain hidden or camouflaged in underground silos from enemy surveillance or satellites till they are fired from the special storage-cum-launch canisters. DRDO Defence scientists admit that given Shaurya's limited range at present, either the silos will have to be constructed closer to India's borders or longer-range missiles will have to be developed. The Shaurya system will require some more tests before it becomes fully operational in two-three years. Moreover, defense scientists say the high-speed, two-stage Shaurya has high maneuverability which also makes it less vulnerable to existing anti-missile defense systems.[45]. When Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems AAD and PAD are to be tested again, the Shaurya invulnerability to anti-missile systems will be tested. The DRDO scientists also have said that if Shaurya is successful and manages to avoid anti ballistic missile radars then the missile can even be used to improve the AAD and PAD systems.
[edit] Sagarika
Sagarika (Sanskrit: Wave / Born from the Ocean) is a nuclear capable submarine-launched ballistic missile with a range of 750 km. This missile has a length of 8.5 meters, weighs seven tonnes and can carry a pay load of up to 500 kg.[46]. The development of this missile started in 1991. The first confirmation about the missile came in 1998[47]. The development of the underwater missile launcher know as the Project 78 (P78) was completed in 2001. This was handed over to the Indian Navy for trials. The missile was successfully test fired thrice. The Indian Navy plans to introduce the missile into service by the end of 2010. Sagarika missile is being integrated with the Advanced Technology Vessel that is expected to begin sea trials by 2009.[48] Sagarika will form part of the triad in India's nuclear deterrence and will provide with retaliatory nuclear strike capability.[49]
Sagarika has already been test-fired from an underwater pontoon, but now DRDO is planning a full-fledged test of the missile from a submarine and for this purpose may use the services of a Russian sub-marine.[50]. Eventually it could be introduced into as many as 5 ballistic missile submarines.
[edit] Cruise missiles
Nirbhay (Sanskrit "Fearless") is a long range, subsonic cruise missile being developed in India. The missile will have a range of 1,000 km and will arm three services, the Indian Army, Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force.[51] The Nirbhay will be able to be launched from multiple platforms on land, sea and air. The first test flight of the missile is expected in the year 2009.[52] Nirbhay will be a terrain hugging, stealth missile[53] capable of delivering 24 different types of warheads depending on mission requirements and will use inertial navigation system for guidance.[54]. There are plans to arm the IL-76MDs with the aerial version of the missile. [55]
India has acquired around 200 3M-54 Klub for arming Talwar class frigate, Shivalik class frigate, Kolkata class destroyer and Sindhughosh class submarine[56]. The Russian 3M-54 Klub is a multi-role missile system developed by the Novator Design Bureau (OKB-8) with a range of 250 km-300 km and an average speed of .8 Mach with a maximum of 2.9 Mach.[57] India has both the Klub-N and Klub-S variant to be used for Ships and Submarines respectively. [58]. Both the Klub-N and Klub-S have been tested successfully. India currently has the 3M-54E, 3M-54E1, 91RE1 and 91RE2 variants. In addition the Navy has plans to arm the Tu-142 and Tu-22M with an air-launched version. Due to Klub's longer range than BrahMos it may also be used in the Mirage 2000 and Su-30 MKI too. The Navy has shown interest in buying more Klubs which would be incorporated on to the S-1000 submarine if bought by India. India is also keen on other Former Soviet cruise missile such as the P-700 Granit and P-500 Bazalt.
India imported a large number of Israel's Rafael made Popeye Missile in late 1999. [59]. Popeye II, an air launched cruise missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads with a range of 80 km can be launched from planes was given to India along with missile defence radars in a deal. [60]. At that time the United States was wary of this due to its close relations with Pakistan. But due to recent military and strategic dealings between the Israel, India and the United States, it is thought that the United States has little or no objection now. The exact number transferred to India is unknown, but possibly 20 missiles to perhaps 50 missiles could have been given with possibly more being built in India. It is still not known which planes are armed with these missiles but it is thought to be the Tu-142 and Sukhoi Su-30MKI, which incorporate some Israeli technology.
India has Soviet P-70 Ametist submarine-launched cruise missiles. [61]. The missile were mostly probably bought in the early 90s and may be used today as canistered launched land based cruise missiles instead of submarine launched cruise missiles. The missiles can carry nuclear warheads and have a range of 50–65 km. Although they are extremely old and incompetent due to their low range and speed, there are still reports that they are kept in reserve and can still be used due to their upgrades in the late 90s. [62].
India has a number of operational Moskits. [63] The P-270 Moskit is a Russian supersonic ramjet powered cruise missile capable of being launched from land and ships. India has most probably bought both land and ship variants which have a range of 120 km. It was reported that the Chinese version had a greater range and was faster than the one India had acquired. As a result in 2008 India bought around 200 Klub missiles and now it is believed that the Moskit have been kept in reserve but can still be used.
BrahMos is a supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or land. It is a joint venture between India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Russia's NPO Mashinostroeyenia who have together formed the BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited.
The acronym BrahMos is perceived as the confluence of the two nations represented by two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. It travels at speeds of Mach 2.5 to 2.8 and is the world's fastest cruise missile. It is about three-and-a-half times faster than the U.S.A's subsonic Harpoon[2] cruise missile. A hypersonic version of the missile is also presently under development (Lab Tested with 5.26 Mach Speed).[3] BrahMos claims to have the capability of attacking surface targets as low as 10 meters in altitude. It can gain a speed of Mach 2.8, and has a maximum range of 290 km.[1] The ship-launched and land-based missiles can carry a 200 kg warhead, whereas the aircraft-launched variant (BrahMos A) can carry a 300 kg warhead. It has a two-stage propulsion system, with a solid-propellant rocket for initial acceleration and a liquid-fueled ramjet responsible for sustained supersonic cruise. Air-breathing ramjet propulsion is much more fuel-efficient than rocket propulsion, giving the BrahMos a longer range than a pure rocket-powered missile would achieve.[citation needed]
The high speed of the BrahMos likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles such as the Tomahawk.[5] Being twice as heavy and almost four times faster than the Tomahawk, the BrahMos has almost 32 times the initial kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile (although it pays for this by having only 3/5 the payload and a fraction of the range despite weighing twice as much, suggesting a different tactical paradigm to achieve the objective).
Although BrahMos is primarily an anti-ship missile, it can also engage land based targets. It can be launched either in a vertical or inclined position and is capable of covering targets over a 360 degree horizon. The BrahMos missile has an identical configuration for land, sea, and sub-sea platforms. The air-launched version has a smaller booster and additional tail fins for added stability during launch. The BrahMos is currently being configured for aerial deployment with the Su-30MKI as its carrier
[edit] Surface to air missile
Akash (Hindi: Sky) is India's medium range surface-to-air missile defense system The missile can target aircraft up to 30 km away, at altitudes up to 18,000 m.[64] Akash can be fired from both tracked and wheeled platforms.[65] Akash is said to be capable of both conventional and nuclear warheads, with a reported payload of 60 kg.[66] A nuclear warhead could potentially give the missile the capability to destroy both aircraft and warheads from ballistic missiles. The missile is described as being able to strike several targets simultaneously, which could mean either separate, independently targetable warheads, or a sufficient blast to destroy a number of them.
Along with India, a limited number of other countries including the US and Russia have developed operational multi-target handling surface-to-air missile systems capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
[edit] Delivery mechanisms
[edit] Nuclear submarines
According to some accounts, India plans to have as many as 20 nuclear submarines capable of carrying missiles with nuclear warheads. Currently, India has built one and is building two more nuclear submarines under the Advanced Technology Vessel plan. India currently maintains six submarines of the Sindhughosh Class that can launch the nuclear-capable 3M-54 Klub cruise missiles.
In 1988 INS Chakra (Sanskrit: Wheel), a Charlie-class submarine was leased by the Indian Navy for three years from the Soviet Union, until 1991. The submarine was leased to India between 1988 and 1991 mainly for India to gain experience in the operations of a nuclear submarine. It was later decommissioned in 1991.
The Arihant class submarines (Sanskrit: Slayer of Enemies) are a class of nuclear-powered Ballistic Missile submarines being constructed for the Indian Navy at Visakhapatnam, India under the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) Project [67][68] The ATV is an SSBN and will be armed with ballistic missiles.
The first of these, INS Arihant was launched on 26 July, 2009. The vessel, which will undergo sea-trials for up to two years, will then be equipped with an unknown number of K-15 Sagarika SLBMs[69].
The second and third submarines of the class may incorporate the Nirbhay as well. As of July 2007, the Sagarika missile as well as Dhanush had undergone three successful tests each.
The INS Sindhuraj(Sanskrit: King of the Ocean), INS Sindhuvir(Sanskrit: Warrior of the Ocean), INS Sindhuratna(Sanskrit: Gem of the Ocean), INS Sindhushastra (Sanskrit: Weapon of the Ocean), INS Sindhukesari and INS Sindhuvijay(Sanskrit: Conqueror of the Ocean) are capable of launching 3M-54 Klub and BrahMos nuclear-capable cruise missiles.[70]. India bought 10 Kilo class (in India known as Sindhughosh Class) submarine of which 6 have been refitted by the Russian Navy so that the they can launch cruise missiles such as nuclear capable 3M-54 Klub.
In 2000, negotiations between India and Russia were conducted into the leasing of two incomplete Akula class. The Akulas were to be delivered to the Indian Navy in 2008 on a lease of at least seven years and up to ten years, in which at the end of the lease, it has an option to buy them. The acquisition was to help the Indian Navy prepare for the introduction of the ATV. The cost to India of acquiring two Akula submarines and their support infrastructure along with training of the crews had been estimated at $2 billion.[71]. The Indian version was reportedly armed with the 300 km range 3M-54 Klub nuclear-capable missiles.[72]. Supposedly on 9 November, 2008 one of the two submarines was conducting tests, when an accident on board killed 20 sailors but no damage occurred to the submarine. Though this deal fell apart for some time due to the Indians demanding an upgrade/improvement in some of its safety features, Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev on his official trip to New Delhi said that the deal was back on track and that "The talk is not about selling submarines into India's property, but about their rent by India's navy". [73] However, unlike the earlier deal the modified deal states that India can only rent and not buy the subs, but defence experts state that the so-called lease agreement is only to divert international attention and that it would be eventually modified and India would inevitably keep the subs. The first submarine will be named INS Chakra.[74]. Russia has also offered the advanced Amur Class Submarine, known as the S1000. According to GlobalSecurity India is already building the S1000 cruise missile submarines in Mazagaon Docks. [75] The Amur will be most probably fitted with P-700 Granit or the Klub cruise missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
[edit] Frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers
Other than submarines, India also maintains ships such as destroyers, modified patrol crafts and frigates which can launch nuclear capable ballistic and cruise missiles.
Talwar class frigate and Shivalik class frigate are frigates of the Indian Navy that can fire nuclear capable cruise missiles. INS Tabar and INS Trishul are Talwar class vessel armed with supersonic nuclear 3M-54 Klub cruise missiles while INS Shivalik was the first vessel of the Shivalik class to incorporate the 3M-54 Klub. Other vessels of the Shivalik Class and Talwar Class are to be armed with the BrahMos and 3M-54 Klub missiles by 2009 and 2010 respectively. All these frigates are also equipped with Barak missiles or other SAMs and harbour helicopters such as the HAL Dhruv. In years to come, the Nirbhay missile is also to be incorporated into Talwar class frigates and Shivalik class frigates.
Rajput Class, Kolkata Class and Delhi Class are Destroyers of the Indian Navy that may be armed with nuclear capable missile-Nirbhay. In addition Kolkata Class will also incorporate the Russian nuclear 3M-54 Klub cruise missile.[76]
The ship launched Dhanush Ballistic Missile was tested from INS Subhadra of the Sukanya class patrol craft in 2000. INS Subhadra is a patrol vessel which was modified and the missile was launched from the reinforced helicopter deck. The 250 km variant was tested but the tests were considered partially successful.[29] In 2004, the missile was again tested from the INS Subhadra and was this time successful.[30] Then the following year in December the missile's 350 km version was tested from the INS Rajput and hit the land based target. [31].
INS Vikramaditya Aircraft Carrier (formerly known as Admiral Gorshkov) was fitted with P-500 Bazalt nuclear capable cruise missiles of the range of 550 km. [77] The Vikramaditya could still be armed with this after its refit. India is also a potential customer for a Slava class cruiser which also incorporates the P-500 Bazalt
[edit] Nuclear-capable aircraft
India currently has 4.5 generation fighter jets capable of launching nuclear weapons. Nuclear-capable aircraft are also seen as a less expensive way of dropping nuclear warheads as well as being as effective.
- Fighter Jets
Indian Air Force Mirage 2000H.
The Sukhoi Su-30MKI,[78] Dassault Mirage 2000 [79], MiG-29[80] and HAL Tejas serve in the Indian Air Force and are also seen as a means to deliver nuclear weapons. In addition India maintains SEPECAT Jaguar and MiG-27M which can be used to drop gravity bombs. [81] However, these planes would be considered useless in the 21st century as gravity bombs have little chance of accomplishing a task.[citation needed] On the other hand, the Su-30MKI, capable of carrying nuclear weapons and tailor-made for Indian specifications, integrates Indian systems and avionics.[78] is one of the best air superiority fighters and also consists of French and Israeli subsystems.[82] The MKI variant features several improvements over the basic K and MK variants and is classified as a 4.5 generation fighter.[83][84] Due to similar features and components, the MKI variant is often considered to be a customized Indian variant of the Sukhoi Su-35. The Mirage 2000Hs were heavily customised during the Kargil War and is the only other version, other than the French 2000N, to be able to be armed with nuclear weapons. However, the air force doesn't really see the Mirage as a nuclear strike aircraft. Though MiG-29 like the HAL Tejas after many test flights have not been tested to use nuclear weapons, they have the capacity to be armed with them. Both the HAL Tejas and Su-30MKI can travel excess of 3,000 km without refueling; this allows India to attack targets far away in an effective manner only using planes rather than delivery systems such as the Agni. The HAL Tejas is India's only indigenous plane to be armed with nuclear weapons, thus making India less dependent on Russia.
[edit] Ballistic missile defense
India has an active ABM development effort using indigenously developed and integrated radars and locally designed missiles.[85] In November 2006, India successfully conducted the PADE (Prithvi Air Defence Exercise) in which an Anti-ballistic missile, called the Prithvi Air Defense (PAD) an Exoatmospheric (outside the atmosphere) interceptor system intercepted a Prithvi-II ballistic missile. The PAD missile has the secondary stage of the Prithvi missile and can reach altitude of 80 km. During the test the target missile was intercepted at an 50 km altitude.[86] India became the fourth nation in the world to acquire such a capability and the third nation to develop it through indigenous effort.[87] On 6 December 2007 the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile system was tested successfully.[88] This missile is an Endo atmospheric interceptor with an altitude of 30 km. According to scientist V K Saraswat of DRDO the missiles will work in tandem to ensure a hit probability of 99.8 percent.[89] Induction of the system into services is expected to be in 2010. Two new anti ballistic missiles that can intercept IRBM/ICBMs are being developed. These high speed missiles (AD-1 and AD-2) are being developed to intercept ballistic missiles with the range of 5,000 km.[90]
India also has Russian S300PMU-2 and it is used as an interceptor for Ballistic missiles. An indigenous nuclear tipped surface to air missile, Akash Missile is used to destroy low range missiles and is capable of destroying various targets and is one of the few of its kind systems in the world. India has also shown interest in the Russian S-400, the most advanced anti-ballistic missile
[edit] Foreign assistance
Due mainly to a total nuclear and missile technology embargo and severe sanctions regime imposed on India after it conducted the 1974 nuclear explosion at Pokhran, most of India's nuclear weapons infrastructure was built developed by the Soviet Union.[5].
According to express India, CIA officials in 2003 released reports confirming massive Soviet development of India's nuclear weapons programs. [6]
In a briefing to Congress on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "[India] has a 30-year record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters."[91]
[edit] Chemical weapons
In 1992 India signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), stating that it did not have chemical weapons and the capacity or capability to manufacture chemical weapons. By doing this India became one of the original signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] in 1993[92], and ratified it on 2 September 1996. According to India's ex-Army Chief General Sunderji, a country having the capability of making nuclear weapons does not need to have chemical weapons, since the dread of chemical weapons could be created only in those countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Others suggested that the fact that India has found chemical weapons dispensable highlighted its confidence in the conventional weapons system at its command.
India informed the United Nations in May, 2009 that it had destroyed its stockpile of chemical weapons in compliance with the international Chemical Weapons Convention. With this India has become third country after South Korea and Albania to do so.[8] This was cross-checked by inspectors of the United Nations.
India has an advanced commercial chemical industry, and produces the bulk of its own chemicals for domestic consumption. It is also widely acknowledged that India has an extensive civilian chemical and pharmaceutical industry and annually exports considerable quantities of chemicals to countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, and Taiwan.[93]
[edit] Biological warfare
India has a well-developed biotechnology infrastructure that includes numerous pharmaceutical production facilities bio-containment laboratories (including BSL-3 and BSL-4) for working with lethal pathogens. It also has highly qualified scientists with expertise in infectious diseases. Some of India's facilities are being used to support research and development for BW defense purposes. India has ratified the BWC and pledges to abide by its obligations. There is no clear evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that directly points toward an offensive BW program. New Delhi does possess the scientific capability and infrastructure to launch an offensive BW program, but has chosen not to do so. In terms of delivery, India also possesses the capability to produce aerosols and has numerous potential delivery systems ranging from crop dusters to sophisticated ballistic missiles.[94]
In 2001, after Indian Postal Services received 17 "suspicious" letters believed to contain Bacillus anthracis spores, a Bio-Safety Level 2 (BSL-2) Laboratory was established to provide guidance in preparing the Indian government for a biological attack. B. anthracis is one of many pathogens studied at the institute, which also examines pathogens causing tuberculosis, typhoid, hepatitis B, rabies, yellow fever, Lassa fever, Ebola, and plague.[94] The Defense Research and Development Establishment (DRDE) at Gwalior is the primary establishment for studies in toxicology and biochemical pharmacology and development of antibodies against several bacterial and viral agents. Work is in progress to prepare responses to threats like Anthrax, Brucellosis, cholera and plague, viral threats like smallpox and viral hemorrhage fever and biotoxic threats like botulism. Most of the information is classified. Researchers have developed chemical/biological protective gear, including masks, suits, detectors and suitable drugs. India has a 'no first use' policy.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Kalam-certifies-Pokharan-II-Santhanam-stands-his-ground/articleshow/4942911.cms
- ^ a b Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen "India's nuclear forces, 2005". "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". September/October 2005. doi:. http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/147052n7g76v4733/?p=e7e3958700f5489a91d4e733984abb4e&pi=20. Retrieved 2009-08-04.
- ^ a b India's Nuclear Weapons Program - Present Capabilities
- ^ Weapons around the world
- ^ US wants India to sign NPT Business Standard, May 07, 2009.
- ^ [1]
- ^ "India's Nuclear Weapons Program: Operation Shakti". 1998. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html. Retrieved 2006-10-10.
- ^ a b http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090514/812/tnl-india-destroys-its-chemical-weapons.html
- ^ B. M. Udgaonkar, India's nuclear capability, her security concerns and the recent tests, Indian Academy of Sciences, January 1999.
- ^ Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen "Indian nuclear forces, 2008". "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". November / December 2008. doi:. http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/t884046w31156318/?p=8e40df8b372d455588ba47f6e743e7fd&pi=11. Retrieved 2009-08-04.
- ^ [2]India's and Pakistan's Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Inventories, end of 1999
- ^ India's Military Plutonium Inventory, End 2004
- ^ India can make 50 nuclear warheads a year[3] [4]
- ^ a b Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine
- ^ United Nations General Assembly Verbatim meeting 67 session 52 on 9 December 1997 (retrieved 2007-08-22)
- ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution session 52 page 16 (retrieved 2007-08-22)
- ^ "IAEA approves India nuclear inspection deal — IAEA". iaea.org. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/board010808.html. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group Grants India Historic Waiver — MarketWatch". Marketwatch.com. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclear-suppliers-group-grants-india/story.aspx?guid={BA6E4022-DBC8-4B43-B9DE-62608913CB8A}&dist=hppr. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ 3 hours ago (3 hours ago). "AFP: India energised by nuclear pacts". Afp.google.com. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5geN2RWjoN4oJhPibc7rhkyxMXfzg. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/25france.htm
- ^ http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/09005930/Bush-signs-IndiaUS-nuclear-de.html?d=1
- ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/India-Mongolia-sign-civilnuclear-cooperation-pact/articleshow/5011170.cms
- ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/Kazakh_oil_deals_hang_in_balance/articleshow/4019306.cms
- ^ http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090080481&ch=1/18/2009%203:57:00%20PM
- ^ http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/3AA1B3B19AE0CD276525754500564CCB?OpenDocument
- ^ Surya (missile)
- ^ India: The Hunt for an Indian Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile - Stratfor
- ^ India to test submarine-launched missile
- ^ a b http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab20.asp
- ^ a b http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html
- ^ a b domain-b.com: Dhanush, naval surface-to-surface missile, test fired successfully
- ^ Agni 1/2/3/4 (India), Offensive weapons - Jane's
- ^ India test-fires N capable Agni-II missile
- ^ Developing a delivery system - By R. RAMACHANDRAN
- ^ India tests long-range missile
- ^ India tests longest-range missile - BBC
- ^ Agni-III test fired - Economic Times
- ^ [Facts about India's Agni-III missile - Daily Times]
- ^ Agni-III test-fired successfully
- ^ 'User-trial' of surface-to-surface Agni-II missile on May 19
- ^ India: The U.S. Nuclear Deal and Indian ICBMs - Startfor
- ^ a b After Agni, India plans 5,000-km missile
- ^ India adds oomph to its space race By Siddharth Srivastava
- ^ http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/14/stories/2008111456561300.htm
- ^ "India successfully test fires Shaurya missile". Times of India. November 13, 2008. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India_test-fires_submarine-launched_missile/articleshow/3703369.cms.
- ^ Sagarika missile test-fired successfully
- ^ India ready for new missile test
- ^ Final test of K-15 ballistic missile on Tuesday
- ^ India gets sub-marine missile power
- ^ Coming from India's defense unit: ASTRA missile
- ^ Fearless Tomahawk-type missile on radar
- ^ India plans to test new medium-range missile in 2009
- ^ DRDO developing hypersonic missile
- ^ Nirbhay to beef up missile muscle
- ^ http://livefist.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-on-nirbhay.html
- ^ http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
- ^ http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/club.htm
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub
- ^ http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=728
- ^ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-142.htm
- ^ http://www.india-defence.com/specifications/submarines/60
- ^ http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.97/cruise_detail.asp
- ^ http://www.india-defence.com/specifications/submarines/60
- ^ Asian tribune: Upgraded version of 'Akash' test fired; By Hemanta Kumar Rout
- ^ Sharma, Ravi, Air Force to place order for Akash missile system. The Hindu, 13 April 2008. Accessed 19 April 2008
- ^ http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.4016/detail.asp
- ^ The secret undersea weapon
- ^ "Indian nuclear submarine", India Today, August 2007 edition
- ^ http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/27/stories/2009072760301000.htm
- ^ The Hindu : International / India & World : Russia may lease nuclear submarine to India
- ^ Project 971 Shuka-B Akula class www.globalsecurity.com
- ^ The Hindu : International / India & World : Russia may lease nuclear submarine to India
- ^ http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20081215/738/tnl-russia-mulls-nuclear-sub-lease-to-in.html
- ^ "Indian nuclear submarine", India Today, July 2008 edition
- ^ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/project-76.htm
- ^ http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
- ^ http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/ships/future/193-ins-vikramaditya.html
- ^ a b http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa010108_1_n.shtml
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_2000#Operational history
- ^ http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/aircraft/index.html
- ^ http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/innukes.html
- ^ http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6809147_ITM
- ^ The Telegraph - Calcutta : Opinion
- ^ Su-30MKI
- ^ [http://www.defensenews.com/aero/story.php?id=2524130 Interview: Vijay Kumar Saraswat Chief Controller of Research and Development, India's DRDO]
- ^ [http://mod.nic.in/samachar/dec15-06/h1.htm Prithvi Mission Milestone in Missile Defence].
- ^ Outlook India. India develops new anti-missile system. November 27, 2006.
- ^ INDIA successfully conducts interceptor supersonic missile test
- ^ India on way to joining exclusive BMD club
- ^ India to develop high speed interceptors
- ^ Our Opportunity With India, Condoleezza Rice, The Washington Post, March 13, 2006
- ^ [pointer]=49
- ^ http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/india/chemical/index.html
- ^ a b http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/india/biological/index.html
49. http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/status-of-participation-in-the-cwc/?tx_damfrontend_pi1[pointer]=2
[edit] External links
- Indian Nuclear Weapons program A good article with very detailed information
- Nuclear Files.org India's nuclear conflict with Pakistan- background and the current situation
- Nuclear Files.org Current information on nuclear stockpiles in India
- Missile testing ranges of India
- Video interviews taken at the 2008 NPT PrepCom on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act
| |||||||||||||
Nuclear power in India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydro and renewable sources of electricity.[1] As of 2008, India has 17 nuclear power plants in operation generating 4,120 MW while 6 other are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 3,160 MW.[2]
Since early 1990s, Russia has been a major source of nuclear fuel to India.[3] Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves,[4] electricity generation from nuclear power in India declined by 12.83% from 2006 to 2008.[5] Following a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September 2008 which allowed it to commence international nuclear trade,[6] India has signed nuclear deals with several other countries including France,[7] United States,[8], and Kazakhstan[9] while the framework for similar deals with Canada and United Kingdom are also being prepared.[10][11] In February 2009, India also signed a $700 million deal with Russia for the supply of 2000 tons nuclear fuel.[12][13]
India now envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 4.2% to 9% within 25 years.[14] In 2010, India's installed nuclear power generation capacity will increase to 6,000 MW.[15] As of 2009, India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors and is constructing 9 more, including two EPRs being constructed by France's Areva.[16] Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3, and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors.[17] India's $717 million fast breeder reactor project is expected to be operational by 2010.[18]
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Growth
India, being a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been subjected to a defacto nuclear embargo from members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) cartel. This has prevented India from obtaining commercial nuclear fuel, nuclear power plant components and services from the international market, thereby forcing India to develop its own fuel, components and services for nuclear power generation. The NSG embargo has had both negative and positive consequences for India's Nuclear Industry. On one hand, the NSG regime has constrained India from freely importing nuclear fuel at the volume and cost levels it would like to support the country's goals of expanding its nuclear power generation capacity to at least 20,000 MW by 2020. Also, by precluding India from taking advantage of the economies of scale and safety innovations of the global nuclear industry, the NSG regime has driven up the capital and operating costs and damaged the achievable safety potential of Indian nuclear power plants. On the other hand, the NSG embargo has forced the Indian government and bureaucracy to support and actively fund the development of Indian nuclear technologies and industrial capacities in all key areas required to create and maintain a domestic nuclear industry. This has resulted in the creation of a large pool of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians that have developed new and unique innovations in the areas of Fast Breeder Reactors, Thermal Breeder Reactors, the Thorium fuel cycle, nuclear fuel reprocessing and Tritium extraction & production. Ironically, had the NSG sanctions not been in place, it would have been far more cost effective for India to import foreign nuclear power plants and nuclear fuels than to fund the development of Indian nuclear power generation technology, building of India's own nuclear reactors, and the development of domestic uranium mining, milling and refining capacity.
The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years thanks in part to the passing of The Indo-US nuclear deal. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity.[19] when the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW.[20]
India has already been using imported enriched uranium and are currently under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, but it has developed various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a Thorium centered fuel cycle. While Uranium deposits in the nation are limited (see next paragraph) there are much greater reserves of Thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that Thorium can theoretically be utilized in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a Thorium blanket is under construction at the Madras/Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.
Uranium used for the weapons program has been separate from the power program, using Uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 metric tonnes of uranium per year.[21] Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20GWe by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 metric tonnes of uranium per annum. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40 to 50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India's Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tonnes), meaning that India's domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.[21]
[edit] Nuclear power plants
Currently, seventeen nuclear power reactors produce 4,120.00 MW (2.9% of total installed base).
| Power station | Operator | State | Type | Units | Total capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaiga | NPCIL | Karnataka | PHWR | 220 x 3 | 660 |
| Kakrapar | NPCIL | Gujarat | PHWR | 220 x 2 | 440 |
| Kalpakkam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | PHWR | 220 x 2 | 440 |
| Narora | NPCIL | Uttar Pradesh | PHWR | 220 x 2 | 440 |
| Rawatbhata | NPCIL | Rajasthan | PHWR | 100 x 1, 200 x 1, 220 x 2 | 740 |
| Tarapur | NPCIL | Maharastra | BWR (PHWR) | 160 x 2, 540 x 2 | 1400 |
| Total | 17 | 4120 |
The projects under construction are:
| Power station | Operator | State | Type | Units | Total capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaiga | NPCIL | Karnataka | PHWR | 220 x 1 | 220 |
| Rawatbhata | NPCIL | Rajasthan | PHWR | 220 x 2 | 440 |
| Kudankulam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | VVER-1000 | 1000 x 2 | 2000 |
| Kalpakkam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | PFBR | 500 x 1 | 500 |
| Total | 6 | 3160 |
The planned projects are:
| Power station | Operator | State | Type | Units | Total capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kakrapar | NPCIL | Gujarat | PHWR | 640 x 2 | 1280 |
| Rawatbhata | NPCIL | Rajasthan | PHWR | 640 x 2 | 1280 |
| Kudankulam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | VVER-1200 | 1200 x 2 | 2400 |
| Jaitapur | NPCIL | Maharastra | EPR | 1600 x 4 | 6400 |
| Kaiga | NPCIL | Karnataka | PWR | 1000 x 1, 1500 x 1 | 2500 |
| Bhavini | PFBR | 470 x 4 | 1880 | ||
| NPCIL | AHWR | 300 | 300 | ||
| NTPC | PWR | 1000 x 2 | 2000 | ||
| NPCIL | PHWR | 640 x 4 | 2560 | ||
| Total | 10 | 20600 |
The following projects are firmly proposed.
| Power station | Operator | State | Type | Units | Total capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kudankulam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | VVER-1200 | 1200 x 2 | 2400 |
| Jaitapur | NPCIL | Maharastra | EPR | 1600 x 2 | 3200 |
| Pati Sonapur | Orissa | PWR | 6000 | ||
| Kumaharia | Haryana | PWR | 2800 | ||
| Saurashtra | Gujarat | PWR | |||
| Pulivendula | NPCIL 51%, AP Genco 49% | Andhra Pradesh | PWR | 2000 x 1 | 2000 |
| Kovvada | Andhra Pradesh | PWR | |||
| Haripur | West Bengal | PWR | |||
| Total | 15 |
The following projects are proposed and to be confirmed soon.
| Power station | Operator | State | Type | Units | Total capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kudankulam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | VVER-1200 | 1200 x 2 | 2400 |
| Total | 2 | 2400 |
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ http://cea.nic.in/power_sec_reports/Executive_Summary/2008_12/27-33.pdf
- ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSDEL16711520080818
- ^ http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=65381
- ^ http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/30222448/Uranium-shortage-holding-back.html
- ^ http://powermin.gov.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp#
- ^ http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=321896
- ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/25france.htm
- ^ http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/09005930/Bush-signs-IndiaUS-nuclear-de.html?d=1
- ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/Kazakh_oil_deals_hang_in_balance/articleshow/4019306.cms
- ^ http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090080481&ch=1/18/2009%203:57:00%20PM
- ^ http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/3AA1B3B19AE0CD276525754500564CCB?OpenDocument
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7883223.stm
- ^ NTPC, Nuclear Power to Spend $3 Billion on India Atomic Plants
- ^ http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/slowdown-not-to-affect-indias-nuclear-plans/19/57/53400/on
- ^ Nuclear power generation to touch 6,000 Mw by next year
- ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL360076520090203
- ^ (http://www.npcil.nic.in/PlantsInOperation.asp
- ^ India's fast breeder reactor nears second milestone
- ^ http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/E696AFE1CBD8BA4C652574A600103BE1?OpenDocument
- ^ http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/10012202/At-G8-Singh-Bush-reaffirm-c.html
- ^ a b http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The Deal Will Strengthen Only India's Peaceful Nuclear Program"
False. The proposed agreement provides India with nuclear materials and technology from the United States. In exchange, India would divide its civilian and military nuclear programs, place safeguards on its civilian nuclear facilities, and allow international inspections. But if the deal is approved in the U.S. Congress this week, India will have sole discretion over whether to classify new reactors as military or civilian, a decision that will affect which ones are subject to international scrutiny. Already, eight nuclear reactors—and all future military reactors—will remain off-limits to inspections.
In addition, India currently has a dwindling stockpile of uranium and does not produce enough fissile material to sustain and expand both its nuclear power and weapon programs. One of the most problematic consequences of the proposed deal is the risk that any nuclear fuel assistance from the United States and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group will free up India's existing uranium for weapons use. In a recent article for the prominent Indian Defence Review, a former top Indian intelligence official wrote that the assurance of fuel supply from the agreement would allow India to use its current stockpile to produce uranium and plutonium for its nuclear weapons program. A recent report for the Princeton University-administered International Panel on Fissile Materials, which provides research on nuclear weapons security, reached similar conclusions.
Supporters of the deal like to point out that several reactors will be taken out of the weapons-making business. But that reasoning ignores the fact that under the terms of the deal, India would be able to increase its weapons production capacity from its current level of seven bombs per year to perhaps as many as 50 nuclear weapons annually.
"India Has a Responsible Nuclear Record"
Debatable. India may have a good record on nuclear exports, but India's history with respect to its own nuclear weapons program is far from stellar. Decades ago, India broke the terms of two nuclear contracts, one with the United States and one with Canada, in which a nuclear reactor and heavy water were provided under a peaceful-use requirement. India secretly shifted materials from these deals to its weapons program—and it continues to do so. As a result, in 1974, India became the first country to misuse civilian nuclear facilities in order to develop a secret nuclear weapons program and test an atom bomb. It is one of only three countries (along with Israel and Pakistan) never to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has represented the world's first line of defense against the spread of nuclear weapons for more than 35 years.
India also has a questionable record of procurement. The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based think tank that provides technical assessments related to nuclear proliferation, asserted in a March 2006 report that India currently engages in the illicit acquisition of uranium enrichment technology, circumventing other countries' export-control laws and leaking sensitive nuclear information in the process. In addition, two Indian companies were sanctioned by the United States in 2005 for transferring missile and chemical weapons technology to Iran, and two nuclear scientists who had worked for India's state-run nuclear utility were barred from doing business with the U.S. government after it was discovered that they had secretly aided Iran's nuclear program.
"Providing India with Nuclear Energy Will Help It to Become Energy Independent"
Incorrect. Sponsors of the deal argue that, with India's energy needs expected to double in the next two decades, nuclear energy will help replace the country's voracious appetite for oil and coal and feed the country's growing electrical grid. But, even if the deal passes in the U.S. Congress, nuclear power will only account for 12.5 percent of India's electrical production by 2030, an ambitious and unrealistic target that doubles India's previous estimates made before the announcement of the deal. And it's not as though India's thirst for oil will be supplanted by nuclear energy. The Indian economy, like the United States, uses oil mainly for transportation and manufacturing—sectors where nuclear energy is not yet applicable. Hype that the agreement could help restrain oil prices is just that—hype. U.S. President George W. Bush has declared that the deal will "help the American consumer" by reducing Indian oil consumption and keeping prices down, but a March Congressional Research Service report on the energy implications of the deal concluded that "the reduction in India's oil consumption . . . would have little or no impact on world oil markets."
Regardless of Indian investment in nuclear power or other energy alternatives for the next three to four decades, the country will continue to depend on coal. That means India should invest in technologies that limit greenhouse gas emissions, including nuclear energy. But building more reactors won't solve the emissions problem. India could reduce emissions more effectively simply by being more efficient. Even by the estimate of India's own Bureau of Energy Efficiency, up to 20,000 megawatts per year—the projected equivalent of the country's nuclear-power capacity for the year 2020—could be saved by increasing the efficiency of the production and use of energy forms already in existence. That would require much less capital and yield faster results for the same reduction in greenhouse gases.
Nuclear Weapons
Background
India's nuclear weapons program was started at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Trombay. In the mid-1950s India acquired dual-use technologies under the "Atoms for Peace" non-proliferation program, which aimed to encourage the civil use of nuclear technologies in exchange for assurances that they would not be used for military purposes. There was little evidence in the 1950s that India had any interest in a nuclear weapons program, according to Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1). Under the "Atoms for Peace" program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada and purchased from the U.S. the heavy water required for its operation. In 1964, India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay, which was used to separate out the plutonium produced by the Cirus research reactor. This plutonium was used in India's first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, described by the Indian government as a "peaceful nuclear explosion."
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, India began work on a thermonuclear weapon in the 1980s. In 1989, William H. Webster, director of the CIA, testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that "indicators that tell us India is interested in thermonuclear weapons capability." India was purifying lithium, producing tritium and separating lithium isotopes. India had also obtained pure beryllium metal from West Germany (2).
Testing
After 24 years without testing India resumed nuclear testing with a series of nuclear explosions known as "Operation Shatki." Prime Minister Vajpayee authorized the tests on April 8, 1998, two days after the Ghauri missile test-firing in Pakistan.
On May 11, 1998, India tested three devices at the Pokhran underground testing site, followed by two more tests on May 13, 1998. The nuclear tests carried out at 3:45 pm on May 11th were claimed by the Indian government to be a simultaneous detonation of three different devices - a fission device with a yield of about 12 kilotons (KT), a thermonuclear device with a yield of about 43 KT, and a sub-kiloton device. The two tests carried out at 12:21 pm on May 13th were also detonated simultaneously with reported yields in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 KT.
However, there is some controversy about these claims. Based on seismic data, U.S. government sources and independent experts estimated the yield of the so-called thermonuclear test in the range of 12-25 kilotons, as opposed to the 43-60 kiloton yield claimed by India. This lower yield raised skepticism about India's claims to have detonated a thermonuclear device.
Observers initially suggested that the test could have been a boosted fission device, rather than a true multi-stage thermonuclear device. By late 1998 analysts at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had concluded that the India had attempted to detonate a thermonuclear device, but that the second stage of the two-stage bomb failed to ignite as planned.
| TEST | DEVICE | DATE | YIELD claimed | YIELD reported |
| Fission device | 18 May 1974 | 12-15 kiloton | 4-6 kiloton | |
| Shakti 1 | Thermonuclear device | 11 May 1998 | 43-60 kiloton | 12-25 kiloton |
| Shakti 2 | Fission device | 11 May 1998 | 12 kiloton | ?? |
| Shakti 3 | Low-yield device | 11 May 1998 | 0.2 kiloton | low |
| Shakti 4 | Low-yield device | 13 May 1998 | 0.5 kiloton | low |
| Shakti 5 | Low-yield device | 13 May 1998 | 0.3 kiloton | low |
India's Nuclear Arsenal
Though India has not made any official statements about the size of it nuclear arsenal, the NRDC estimates that India has a stockpile of approximately 30-35 nuclear warheads and claims that India is producing additional nuclear materials. Joseph Cirincione at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (3) estimates that India has produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for 50-90 nuclear weapons and a smaller but unknown quantity of weapons-grade uranium. Weapons-grade plutonium production takes place at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center, which is home to the Cirus reactor acquired from Canada, to the indigenous Dhruva reactor, and to a plutonium separation facility.
According to a Jan. 2001 Department of Defense report, "India probably has a small stockpile of nuclear weapon components and could assemble and deploy a few nuclear weapons within a few days to a week." A 2001 RAND study by Ashley Tellis asserts that India does not have or seek to deploy a ready nuclear arsenal.
According to a report in Jane's Intelligence Review (4), India's objective is to have a nuclear arsenal that is "strategically active but operationally dormant", which would allow India to maintain its retaliatory capability "within a matter of hours to weeks, while simultaneously exhibiting restraint." However, the report also maintains that, in the future, India may face increasing institutional pressure to shift its nuclear arsenal to a fully deployed status.
Doctrine
India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only." The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s).'"
According to the NRDC, despite the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001-2002, India remains committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy. But an Indian foreign ministry official told Defense News in 2000 that a "'no-first-strike' policy does not mean India will not have a first-strike capability."
India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and four of its 13 nuclear reactors are subject to IAEA safeguards.
Despite promoting a test ban treaty for decades, India voted against the UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the CTBT, which was adopted on September 10, 1996. India objected to the lack of provision for universal nuclear disarmament "within a time-bound framework." India also demanded that the treaty ban laboratory simulations. In addition, India opposed the provision in Article XIV of the CTBT that requires India's ratification for the treaty to enter into force, which India argued was a violation of its sovereign right to choose whether it would sign the treaty. In early February 1997, Foreign Minister Gujral reiterated India's opposition to the treaty, saying that "India favors any step aimed at destroying nuclear weapons, but considers that the treaty in its current form is not comprehensive and bans only certain types of tests."
Images - First Nuclear Test - May 18, 1974
Images - Shakti Nuclear Weapons Tests - May 11-13, 1998
Images - Shakti Nuclear Weapons Tests - May 11-13, 1998
Sources and Resources
- Removal of License Requirements for Exports of Controlled Items to India, Federal Register, August 30, 2005
- U. S. Nuclear Cooperation With India: Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, July 29, 2005
Independent Analysis of India's Nuclear Arsenal
- Proliferation: Threat and Response, Jan. 2001 - A Defense Department report on the status of nuclear proliferation in South Asia. It includes a brief historical background on the conflict between India and Pakistan as well as an assessment of their nuclear capabilities, chem/bio programs, ballistic missile programs and other means of delivery.
- NRDC Nuclear Notebook - India's Nuclear Forces, 2002 A brief assessment of India's nuclear, missile, aircraft and naval capabilities.
- SPECIAL ISSUE: INDIA BOMBS THE BAN - Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, July/August 1998. A collection of articles that discuss the implications of India's 1998 nuclear tests. "The shots heard 'round the world", by David Albright provides an analysis of the tests and describes India's uranium enrichment and plutonium isolation facilities.
- India's Emerging Nuclear Posture - a Rand issue brief based on a study by Ashley J. Tellis. The brief discusses India's pursuit of a "force in being" nuclear posture, which falls somewhere between a ready arsenal and a recessed deterrent -- a collection of unassembled nuclear warheads, all kept under strict civilian control and separate from delivery systems.
- Negotiating the CTBT: India's Security Concerns and Nuclear Disarmament - Journal of International Affairs, 1997. Discusses India's involvement with the CTBT negotiations and explains why India decided not to sign the treaty.
- 17 Days in May Chronology of Indian nuclear weapons tests
- Memo for the Director of Central Intelligence: Indian Post Mortem Report, lessons learned from the 1974 Indian nuclear explosive test, 18 July 1974
Offical Documents and Information Released by the Indian Government
- India Department of Atomic Energy website - Provides information on various institutions within India's civil nuclear infrastructure, such as research facilities and nuclear power plants.
- Draft Report on Indian Nuclear Doctrine - Released by India's National Security Advisory Board on August 17, 1999. The draft doctrine asserts that India's nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only." The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his "designated successor(s)."
- Press Conference (Dr. R. Chidambaram (RC), Chairman, AEC & Secretary, DAE; Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam (K), Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and Secretary, Department of Defence Research and Development; Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Director, BARC; Dr. K. Santhanam, Chief Advisor (Technologies), DRDO) May 17, 1998 -- Chidambaram said that the three simultaneous explosions on May 11 involved a 12 KT (kiloton) fission device; the second a 43 KT thermonuclear device, and the third a 0.2 sub- KT low yield device. The distance separating the shafts for the 12 KT and 43 KT devices was one kilometre. All three devices were exploded simultaneously as a gap in the blasts could have resulted in the loss of valuable data for the shock waves travel in mili-seconds. The two simultaneous nuclear explosions on May 13 involved two low yield devices of 0.5 and 0.3 sub- KT each.
Analysis of India's 1998 Nuclear Tests
- Preliminary Regional Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Explosions and Earthquakes in Southwest Asia - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1998. Describes in detail the seismic analysis of India's 1998 nuclear tests and concludes that "Estimates of yield based on seismic magnitude and trace data are significantly smaller than statements by Indian scientists and officials to date."
- The May 1998 India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests - Terry C. Wallace, Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory (SASO) University of Arizona -- July 23, 1998 -- PrePrint of a Paper to Appear in the September SRL -- This paper provides seismic analysis of the nuclear explosions carried out by India and Pakistan in 1998 and concludes that "The May 11 India test had a seismic yield of 10-15 kt. This is a factor of 4 smaller than that announced by the Indian government, and there have been several attempts to explain the discrepancy."
- POST SHOT RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON SAMPLES EXTRACTED FROM THERMONUCLEAR TEST SITE S.B.Manohar, B.S.Tomar, S.S.Rattan, V.K.Shukla, V.V.Kulkarni and Anil Kakodkar BARC Newsletter, No. 186, July 1999 - This newsletter reports the results of radiochemical measurements carried out at India's Bhabha Atomic Research Center on samples extracted from the thermonuclear test site and concludes that the total yield of the thermonuclear device tested in 1998 was 50 KT (with a margin of error of 10 KT).
- FISSION SIGNATURES OF TESTS ON SUB-KILOTON DEVICES R.B. Attarde, V.K. Shukla, D.A.R. Babu, V.V. Kulkarni and Anil Kakodkar BARC Newsletter No. 187, September 1999 - This report gives some of the results of gamma radiation logging measurements in bore holes at the sites of sub-kiloton tests.
Citations
- 4 Unsanctioned nuclear activity
- 4.5.4 Israel
- 4.6 Russia
- 5 Arguments in favor of proliferation
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 External links and references
- Material Accountancy - tracking all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any nuclear facility. This includes sampling and analysis of nuclear material, on-site inspections, and review and verification of operating records.
- Physical Security - restricting access to nuclear materials at the site.
- Containment and Surveillance - use of seals, automatic cameras and other instruments to detect unreported movement or tampering with nuclear materials, as well as spot checks on-site.
- The IAEA is to be given considerably more information on nuclear and nuclear-related activities, including R & D, production of uranium and thorium (regardless of whether it is traded), and nuclear-related imports and exports.
- IAEA inspectors will have greater rights of access. This will include any suspect location, it can be at short notice (e.g., two hours), and the IAEA can deploy environmental sampling and remote monitoring techniques to detect illicit activities.
- States must streamline administrative procedures so that IAEA inspectors get automatic visa renewal and can communicate more readily with IAEA headquarters.
- Further evolution of safeguards is towards evaluation of each state, taking account of its particular situation and the kind of nuclear materials it has. This will involve greater judgement on the part of IAEA and the development of effective methodologies which reassure NPT States.
- two 150 MWe BWRs from the United States, which started up in 1969, now use locally-enriched uranium and are under safeguards,
- two small Canadian PHWRs (1972 & 1980), also under safeguards, and
- ten local PHWRs based on Canadian designs, two of 150 and eight 200 MWe.
- two new 540 MWe and two 700 MWe plants are tarapore (known as TAPP :Tarapore Atomic Power Project)
- its determination to be recognized as a dominant power in the region
- its increasing concern with China's expanding nuclear weapons and missile delivery programmes
- its concern with Pakistan's capability to deliver nuclear weapons deep into India
- List of states with nuclear weapons, including the figures
- Nuclear disarmament
- Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone
- Nuclear fuel bank
- Nuclear weapon
- Nuclear warfare
- Nuclear power
- Nuclear terrorism
- Ten Threats identified by the UN
- Dual-use technology
- International Atomic Energy Agency
- Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
- Seabed Arms Control Treaty
- Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty
- Chemical weapon proliferation
- International Science and Technology Center
- Institute of Nuclear Materials Management
- ^ Nash, Gary B., Julie Roy Jeffrey, John R. Howe, Peter J. Frederick, Allen F. Davis, Allan M. Winkler, Charlene Mires, and Carla Gardina Pestana. The American People, Concise Edition Creating a Nation and a Society, Combined Volume (6th Edition). New York: Longman, 2007.
- ^ The Baruch Plan | Arms Control, Deterrence and Nuclear Proliferation | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com
- ^ a b Catherine Collins and Douglas Frantz (2007). "How you helped build Pakistan's bomb". Asia Times Online. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK29Df02.html. Retrieved 2007-11-30.
- ^ Babur Habib et al. (2006). "Stemming the Spread of Enrichment Technology" (PDF). Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/Stemming_the_Spread_of_Enrichment_Plants.pdf. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
- ^ Victor Galinsky, Marvin Miller & Harmon Hubbard (2004). "A Fresh Examination of the Proliferation Dangers of Light Water Reactors" (PDF). Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. http://www.npec-web.org/Reports/Report041022%20LWR.pdf. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
- ^ http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Safeguards/sg_protocol.html
- ^ Additional Protocols to Nuclear Safeguards Agreements
- ^ NTI Egypt Profile
- ^ When Nuclear Sheriffs Quarrel, The Economist, 30 October 2008.
- ^ Remarks With Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, 5 October 2004
- ^ "Nuclear Weapons Program". WMD Around the World – South Africa. Federation of American Scientists. 2000. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
- ^ Prospects for Further Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Special National Intelligence Estimate, CIA, 23 August 1974, p. 40, SNIE 4-1-74, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB240/snie.pdf, retrieved 2008-01-20
- ^ "National Security Decision Memorandum 276". U.S. National Security Council. 15 October 1974. http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm276a.htm. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ "National Security Directive 61" (PDF). The White House. 2 July 1991. http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/pdfs/nsd/nsd61.pdf. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ Dan Plesch (March 2006) (PDF). The Future of Britain's WMD. Foreign Policy Centre. pp. 15. http://www.danplesch.net/articles/WMD/WMDMar10FINAL.pdf. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ a b Ministry of Defence and Property Services Agency: Control and Management of the Trident Programme. National Audit Office. 29 June 1987. para. 1.1, 3.27, A4.4. ISBN 0102027889.
- ^ "Stockpile Stewardship Plan: Second Annual Update (FY 1999)" (PDF). U.S. Department of Energy. April 1998. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/images/W76req.pdf. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ "Britain's Next Nuclear Era". Federation of American Scientists. 7 December 2006. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/12/britains_next_nuclear_era_1.php. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ "Plutonium and Aldermaston - an historical account" (PDF). UK Ministry of Defence. 4 September 2001. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B31B4EF0-A584-4CC6-9B14-B5E89E6848F8/0/plutoniumandaldermaston.pdf. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ "Additional Information Concerning Underground Nuclear Weapon Test of Reactor-Grade Plutonium". U.S. Department of Energy. June 1994. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ "The Beginning: 1944-1960". India's Nuclear Weapons Program. Nuclear Weapon Archive. 2001. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
- ^ "Pakistan Nuclear Weapons – A Chronology". WMD Around the World. Federation of American Scientists. 1998. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
- ^ Frank Barnaby (14 June 2004), Expert opinion of Frank Charles Barnaby in the matter of Mordechai Vanunu, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/barnaby.pdf, retrieved 2007-12-16
- ^ Pete Earley, "Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War", Penguin Books, 2007, ISBN 978-0-399-15439-3, pages 114-121.
- ^ Doomsday: On The Brink, The Learning Channel, 1997
- National Counterproliferation Center - Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- Official website of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): http://www.iaea.org/
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - A non-technical public policy and global security magazine that has reported on nuclear proliferation issues since 1945.
- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center - Publications from Harvard faculty and fellows on nuclear proliferation.
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nonproliferation Website
- Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
- Council for a Livable World
- Federation of American Scientists
- Monterey Institute of International Studies, Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Nevada Desert Experience Nevada Desert Experience
- Nonproliferation Policy Education Center - A not-for-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., and founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues among policymakers, scholars and the media.
- Nuclear Threat Initiative
- Proliferation Papers - Electronic papers published by the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri, Paris and Brussels).
- The Uranium Information Centre provided much of the original material in this article.
- Union of Concerned Scientists articles on nuclear weapons [6]
- Western States Legal Foundation
- "Going Nuclear: William Langewiesche on The Atomic Bazaar" 26 June 2007 interview at Propeller.com
- The Wrath of Khan from The Atlantic Monthly
- Preventing Catastrophic Nuclear Terrorism, a Council on Foreign Relations Special Report by Senior Fellow Charles Ferguson
- Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks - U.S. Congress, Office of Techchnology Assessment (OTA-ISC-559, August 1993)
- "A Tale of Nuclear Proliferation: How Pakistani Built His Network"
- Annotated bibliography on nuclear proliferation from the Alsos Digital Library
- Opinion essay arguing for a totally "nuclear-free" world by Prof. Adil Najam in USA Today.
- 27,000 Holocausts - a Pinky Show online video interview with John Burroughs (Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy).
- Pierre Gallois, The Balance of Terror: Strategy for the Nuclear Age (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961).
- S. Sagan and K. Waltz (2003), The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed, New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
- J.J. Mearsheimer (1990), 'Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War' in International Security, Vol. 15, pp. 5–56
- J.J. Mearsheimer (1993), 'Case for a Ukrainian deterrent' in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, pp. 50–66
- R.K. Betts (2000), 'Universal deterrence or conceptual collapse? Liberal pessimism or utopian realism' in V. A. Utgoff (ed.), The Coming Crisis: Nuclear Proliferation, US Interests and World Order, Cambridge MA: MIT Press
- Nuclear Files.org Comprehensive information regarding nuclear proliferation, including case studies.
- Nuclear Files.org Nuclear Proliferation and the Potential Threat of Nuclear Terrorism
- Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status Congressional Research Service Report, 26 December 2006.
- George Perkovich, "Principles for Reforming the Nuclear Order", Proliferation Papers, Paris, Ifri, Fall 2008
- Jamyang Norbu, The China (Proliferation) Syndrome, Phayul.com, 20 February 2009.
- Introduction
- What are the terms of the deal?
- What kind of technology would India receive in return?
- What do proponents say about the deal?
- What are the objections to the agreement?
- Who needs to approve the agreement?
- What effect will the U.S.-India deal have on the NPT?
- What role does China play in the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal?
- What effect will the deal have on U.S. and Indian relations with Pakistan?
- What's the history of India's nuclear program?
- India agrees to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog group, access to its civilian nuclear program. By March 2006, India promised to place fourteen of its twenty-two power reactors under IAEA safeguards permanently. Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says these will include domestically built plants, which India has not been willing to safeguard before now. India has promised that all future civilian thermal and breeder reactors shall be placed under IAEA safeguards permanently. However, the Indian prime minister says New Delhi "retains the sole right to determine such reactors as civilian." According to him: "This means that India will not be constrained in any way in building future nuclear facilities, whether civilian or military, as per our national requirements." Military facilities-and stockpiles of nuclear fuel that India has produced up to now-will be exempt from inspections or safeguards.
- India commits to signing an Additional Protocol (PDF)-which allows more intrusive IAEA inspections-of its civilian facilities.
- India agrees to continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.
- India commits to strengthening the security of its nuclear arsenals.
- India works toward negotiating a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) with the United States banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes.India agrees to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that don't possess them and to support international nonproliferation efforts.
- U.S. companies will be allowed to build nuclear reactors in India and provide nuclear fuel for its civilian energy program. (An approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group lifting the ban on India has also cleared the way for other countries to make nuclear fuel and technology sales to India.)
- Would encourage India to accept international safeguards on facilities it has not allowed to be inspected before. This is a major step, experts say, because the existing nonproliferation regime has failed either to force India to give up its nuclear weapons or make it accept international inspections and restrictions on its nuclear facilities. "President Bush's bilateral deal correctly recognizes that it is far better for the nonproliferation community if India works with it rather than against it," writes Seema Gahlaut of the University of Georgia's Center for International Trade and Security in a CSIS policy brief. IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei has strongly endorsed the deal, calling it a pragmatic way to bring India into the nonproliferation community.
- Recognizes India's history of imposing voluntary safeguards on its nuclear program. Proponents of the deal say India has an excellent record of setting credible safeguards on its nuclear program for the last thirty years. After the safeguards on the U.S.-supplied Tarapur nuclear facility expired in 1993, for example, India voluntarily established a new agreement with the IAEA to continue the restrictions.
- Recognizes that India has a good record on proliferation. Although it is not a signatory to the NPT, India has maintained strict controls on its nuclear technology and has not shared it with any other country. Proponents of the deal say this restraint shows that India, unlike its nuclear neighbor Pakistan, is committed to responsible nuclear stewardship and fighting proliferation. In May 2005 India passed a law, the WMD Act, which criminalizes the trade and brokering of sensitive technology.
- Rewards India's decision to adopt similar nuclear export standards as those imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). India has thus far chosen to abide by the strict export controls on nuclear technology set by the NSG, a group of forty-five nuclear-supplier states that coordinates controls of nuclear exports to non-nuclear-weapon states. Experts say if India chose to lift these voluntary restrictions, it could easily sell its technology to far less trustworthy countries around the world. The U.S. deal would reward the Indian government for its voluntary controls and give New Delhi incentive to continue them, against the demands of Indian hardliners who question what India gets out of placing such limits on itself.
- The safeguards apply only to facilities and material manufactured by India beginning when the agreement was reached. It doesn't cover the fissile material produced by India over the last several decades of nuclear activity. The CRS report says, "A significant question is how India, in the absence of full-scope safeguards, can provide adequate confidence that U.S. peaceful nuclear technology will not be diverted to nuclear weapons purposes."
- The deal does not require India to cap or limit its fissile material production. This comes at a time when nearly all the major nuclear powers-including the United States, France, Britain, and Russia-are moving to limit their production.
- The deal does not require India to restrict the number of nuclear weapons it plans to produce.
- There are more cost-efficient ways to improve India's energy and technology sectors. These could include making India's existing electricity grid more efficient, restructuring the country's coal industry, and expanding the use of renewable energy sources, Sokolski said in congressional testimony in 2005. All these steps would involve much less dangerous transfers of technology that would not be dual-use, and therefore not convertible to nuclear weapons production.
- The agreement takes unnecessary risks without adequate preparation or expert review. The agreement "appears to have been formulated without a comprehensive high-level review of its potential impact on nonproliferation, the significant engagement of many of the government's most senior nonproliferation experts, or a clear plan for achieving its implementation," wrote William C. Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, in Nonproliferation Review in August 2005. "Indeed, it bears all the signs of a top-down administrative directive specifically designed to circumvent the interagency review process and to minimize input from any remnants of the traditional 'nonproliferation lobby.'"
- IAEA. India signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA under which all nuclear material and equipment transferred to it by the United States as a part of this deal shall be subject to safeguards. In August 2008, the IAEA's Board of Governors approved an India-specific safeguards agreement (PDF). The IAEA said it will begin to implement the new agreement in 2009, with the aim of bringing fourteen Indian reactors under agency safeguards by 2014. The IAEA currently applies safeguards to six of these fourteen nuclear reactors under previous agreements. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says the IAEA and India are in dialogue concerning an additional protocol to the draft safeguards agreement.
- India's Parliament. While the deal does not require a formal vote by the parliament, the coalition government has faced a confidence vote over it. Many parliamentarians oppose the deal, arguing it will limit India's sovereignty and hurt its security. Some Indian nuclear experts are protesting what they see as excessive U.S. participation in deciding which of India's nuclear facilities to define as civilian, and open to international inspections under the plan.
- The Nuclear Suppliers Group. In September 2008, after much lobbying by the Bush administration, the group approved the India-specific exemption.
- Congress. In October 2008, the U.S. Congress gave final approval to the bill. Under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which regulates the trade of nuclear material, congressional approval was needed to pass the exemptions to U.S. laws required for the nuclear deal to be implemented. Some members of Congress were resistant, and called for India to commit to strict limits on its nuclear weapons program before the deal went through. There is a potential area of dispute with India over the terms for suspending the agreement. Before clearing the bill, the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment that would require U.S. nuclear supplies to be cut off if India tests nuclear weapons. The deal does not explicitly impose that condition, though it is part of a 2006 law known as the Hyde Act, which gave the deal preliminary approval.
- ... tracts of land for the development of commercial cropping for increasing Liberia's food security as well as for export… New Kerala 5 days ago
-
India to push for adoption of convention against…
New Kerala 4 days ago -
Technical Textiles to usher in 2nd green revolution
Fibre2Fashion 6 days ago -
- Raj General Store ·
- 09811015618
- 5445, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next
-
Top Stories Updated 8 minutes agoRacial attacks unacceptable: Australia
Press Trust of India - ?46 minutes ago?New Delhi, Sep 24 (PTI) Acknowledging that the spate of attacks on Indians has affected its image here, Australia today said racial attacks were unacceptable to it and steps are being taken to prevent such crimes.In India, Victorian Premier regrets race attack on Indians Indian ExpressUN council endorses nuclear curbs
BBC News - ?58 minutes ago?The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution calling for nuclear disarmament, in a session chaired by US President Barack Obama.Video: UN Resolution Aims to Rid World of Nuclear Weapons
The Associated Press UN moves to curb nuclear arms Aljazeera.netBalco accident: Rescuers struggle to carry on
Express Buzz - ?2 hours ago?BALCO NAGAR: Over a hundred rescuers struggled here Thursday to reach an estimated 50 people still trapped under the debris of a 100-metre chimney of the Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd (Balco) plant that crashed a day earlier killing 20 people.BALCO chimney collapse: Death toll rises to 24 Indian ExpressNew Zealand vs. South Africa, 3rd Match, Group B
NZ 214/10(47.5) | RSA 217/5(41.1)
RSA won by 5 wkts
Last 2 Overs: . 1 4 1 1 1| 4
Recommended for you »
Sign in to add a section with stories recommended for you, by using search history.Rahul Gandhi stayed night with Dalit villagers
Economic Times - ?1 hour ago?LUCKNOW: After a brief lull in activity immediately after the impressive Lok Sabha results from the state, the Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi has again started touring Uttar Pradesh much to the discomfort of Chief Minister Mayawati.UP govt protests Rahul's surprise visit India TodayNo threat to Commonwealth Games, same security for all: India
Hindustan Times - ?41 minutes ago?India on Thursday said there was no security threat of any sort to 2010 Commonwealth Games to be held in New Delhi next year and all participants, irrespective of their countries, would get same level of security.Foolproof security for Commonwealth Games: Govt Press Trust of IndiaNo security threat to Commonwealth Games: Maken Economic TimesKakodkar says Pokhran-11 tests fully successful
Press Trust of India - ?2 hours ago?Mumbai, Sep 24 (PTI) Trashing the contention that the Pokhran II nuclear tests in 1998 were a failure, India's top scientists today said all objectives had been achieved and the country now has the deterrence capability of upto 200 kilotons.India nuclear tests 'successful' BBC NewsIndia's 1998 n-tests were successful, assert scientists Mangalorean.comLocal News »
View stories near:China Says Sanctions Won't Deter Iran's Nuclear Agenda
Voice of America - ?31 minutes ago?By VOA News China is reiterating its stance that sanctions are not appropriate for deterring Iran from a nuclear weapons program. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters Thursday that sanctions and pressure are "not the way" to ...Israel welcomes Russian stand on Iran sanctions The Associated PressPalestinian President: No Common Ground for Negotiations With Israel
Voice of America - ?1 hour ago?By VOA News Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "a real problem," and there is no common ground for negotiations between the two leaders.How Shriti the Shriek became Baroness Vadera
Telegraph.co.uk - - ?24 minutes ago?At the height of last year's banking crisis, as the Government battled to find a way to bail out the financial sector, Gordon Brown's protégé was spotted in Whitehall with one hand heavily strapped and bandaged.Brown's Ally Vadera to Take G20 Role New York TimesVadera stepping down as minister BBC NewsFed to offer trimmer TAF auctions through January
Reuters - - ?35 minutes ago?WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - The US Federal Reserve on Thursday said it will offer banks access to emergency short-term funds through its Term Auction Facility at least through January while trimming the sizes and maturity lengths of the auctions in ...US economy 'picked up'; financial conditions improved: Fed Economic TimesGM India expects 50% growth in 2010
Business Standard - ?1 hour ago?PTI / New Delhi September 24, 2009, 19:22 IST With the bankruptcy crisis behind it, US car maker General Motors expects sales in India to grow by up to 50 per cent next year on the back of its proposed mini car to be launched this year-end.GM India partnering India's Reva for electric car Reuters IndiaIndia's Reliance Ind, NTPC sign gas supply deal
Reuters India - ?1 hour ago?MUMBAI, Sept 24 (Reuters) - India's Reliance Industries (RELI.BO: Quote, Profile, Research) will supply gas to some of state-run utility's NTPC (NTPC.RIL inks gas supply deals with NTPC India Infoline.comCAG says it is to complete RIL auditing in 3-4 months Press Trust of IndiaMoon 'has a litre of water for every tonne of soil'
Times Online - - ?1 hour ago?The Moon's surface holds as much as a litre of water in every tonne of lunar soil, according to new research. Observations taken independently by three different spacecraft, including India's first lunar mission, have detected the chemical signature of ...Video: 'Water' found on the moon ITN NEWS Oceansat-2 launch one of the best: Space centre Director
Press Trust of India - ?3 hours ago?Thiruvananthapuram, Sept 24 (PTI) The textbook launch of Oceansat-2 and six nano European satellites in 20 minutes by homegrown rocket PSLV was one of best performances in the Indian space programme, Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre K ...India's caste system descended from two tribes 'not colonialism'
Times Online - - ?5 hours ago?Genetic profiling shows that the structure of Indian society today reflects early social groupings, not just colonialism India's caste system is not a relic of colonialism but has existed in some form for thousands of years, the most comprehensive ...India a nation of multiple populations, say scientists Press Trust of IndiaExcerpts: Live chat with Priyanka Chopra
NDTV.com - ?59 minutes ago?Priyanka Chopra joined us on a live chat on NDTVMovies.com and fielded questions from thousands of fans who logged in from all over the world.What's Your Rashee? wins over Toronto IndiaGlitzJulia Roberts to shoot at Mirzapur village
Press Trust of India - ?2 hours ago?Chandigarh, Sep 24 (PTI) Hollywood superstar Julia Roberts, who is India to shoot for her upcoming movie 'Eat, Pray, Love' will next be heading to Mirzapur village in Haryana's Gurgaon district to film a scene on Sunday, state government officials said ...Over 21900 Durga Puja marquees come up across Bangladesh
Sify - ?8 hours ago?Over 21900 `mandops' (marquees) have come up across Bangladesh as Hindus Thursday began Durga Puja celebrations. The number of marquees was higher than last year, a media report said.Durga Puja begins in Kolkata Indian ExpressCity decks up to welcome goddess Times of IndiaODI shift angers Jaipur's cricket lovers
NDTV.com - - ?31 minutes ago?Two days after warring factions in the Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) put separate locks at the association's office in Jaipur, the opening ODI in the upcoming India-Australia series has been shifted out of the city.Australia ODI shifted from Jaipur to Vadodara CricInfo.comSri Lanka not underestimating England
CricInfo.com - ?1 hour ago?England are still smarting from a humiliating 6-1 defeat against Australia and arrived in South Africa late, with no time for a warm-up match and little time to acclimatize to local conditions.Flower expects England to bloom The Press AssociationEngland to Win Champions Trophy BBC SportBracken out of Champions Trophy with knee injury
The Canadian Press - ?50 minutes ago?MELBOURNE, Australia - Australia fast bowler Nathan Bracken has been ruled out of the ICC Champions Trophy in South Africa due to a right knee injury.'ODIs should be 40 overs a side' CricInfo.comBackgrounder: Bumpy road for development of AIDS vaccine
Xinhua - ?7 minutes ago?BANGKOK, Sept. 24 (Xinhua) -- Thailand announced Thursday a breakthrough in the development of an AIDS vaccine. That came as scientists discovered the first-ever AIDS vaccine that has preventive efficacy.WHO cuts swine flu vaccine production estimate
AFP - ?2 hours ago?GENEVA - The World Health Organization said Thursday that global production of the swine flu vaccines would reach only three billion doses a year but that trials suggest the jabs are as safe as seasonal flu vaccines.'Test pupils for swine flu' call BBC NewsH1N1 epidemic shows signs of decline in city
Sakaal Times - ?4 hours ago?Pune: After keeping the district on tenterhooks for the last two months, there is a definite indication of the H1N1 epidemic loosening its grip gradually over the last one week.Cops seize thousands of fake N95 masks from warehouse Expressindia.com73000 fake N95 masks seized in city raids Times of India1500 IIT teachers start hunger strike
Business Standard - ?1 hour ago?PTI / New Delhi September 24, 2009, 12:26 IST For the first time, about 1500 teachers of prestigious IITs across the country went on a hunger strike today on the issue of pay structure, They did not, however, boycott their classes.Video: IIT: The divide within NDTV.com I am ready to have dialogue with IIT faculty: Kapil Sibal Press Trust of IndiaAfter helping China, Australia says Arunachal belongs to India
Press Trust of India - ?1 hour ago?New Delhi, Sep 24 (PTI) Australia, which recently joined China in blocking an ADB loan for a project in Arunachal Pradesh, today said it does not believe in the Chinese contention that the state is not a part of India.India, China joint drill called off Times of IndiaIndia to press for continuance of stimulus package at G-20 Summit
domain-B - ?19 minutes ago?Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who leads the Indian delegation to the G-20 summit being hosted by President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh US, is expected to ask for a continuation of the stimulus package designed to lift the global economy out of the ...PM to push for radical reforms of global financial Press Trust of IndiaG20 summit eve: India for continuance of stimulus package Business Standard
1. Joseph Cirincione, John B. Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 2002, pp. 191-206. A chapter on India that provides a thorough overview of its nuclear and chem/bio capabilities, ballistic missile programs and other means of delivery.
2. William Webster, "Nuclear and Missile Proliferation," hearing before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, May 18, 1989 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1990), p. 12. - In his testimony before the Senate, the Director of Central Intelligence asserts that India has been pursuing programs that indicate an interest in thermonuclear weapons capabilities.
3. Joseph Cirincione et al. Op Cit.
4. TS Gopi Rethinaraj, "Nuclear diplomacy returns to South Asian security agenda," Jane's Intelligence Review, May 2002, pp.40-43. - A concise overview of India and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, nuclear doctrines and ballistic missile capabilities accompanied by an assessment of the relationships between Pakistan, India and China. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html
Nuclear proliferation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009) |
 | This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (March 2008) |
| Nuclear weapons |
|---|
 |
| History |
| Nuclear-armed states |
| China · France · India |
Nuclear proliferation is a term now used to describe the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, to nations which are not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT.
Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, the governments of which fear that more countries with nuclear weapons may increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (up to and including the so-called "countervalue" targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons), de-stabilize international or regional relations, or infringe upon the national sovereignty of states.
Four nations, none of which signed or ratified the NPT, have acquired, or are presumed to have acquired, nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Critics of the NPT and Nuclear Weapon States cite this when they charge that the NPT-system is discriminatory.[citation needed]
Contents[hide] |
[edit] History of nuclear proliferation
The earliest instance of proliferation date to World War II, when multiple countries—specifically the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and the USSR—each began sponsored research into the development of nuclear weapons. In September, 1949, the USSR tested its own nuclear bomb, eliminating the U.S. nuclear monopoly.[1] Early anti-proliferation efforts involved intense government secrecy, the wartime acquisition of known uranium stores (the Combined Development Trust), and at times even outright sabotage—such as the bombing of a heavy-water facility thought to be used for a German nuclear program. None of these efforts were explicitly public, owing to the fact that the weapon developments themselves were kept secret until the bombing of Hiroshima.
Earnest international efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation began soon after World War II, when the Truman Administration proposed the Baruch Plan[2] of 1946, named after Bernard Baruch, America's first representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The Baruch Plan, which drew heavily from the Acheson-Lilienthal Report of 1946, proposed the verifiable dismantlement and destruction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (which, at that time, was the only nuclear arsenal in the world) after all governments had cooperated successfully to accomplish two things: (1) the establishment of an "international atomic development authority," which would actually own and control all military-applicable nuclear materials and activities, and (2) the creation of a system of automatic sanctions, which not even the U.N. Security Council could veto, and which would proportionately punish states attempting to acquire the capability to make nuclear weapons or fissile material.
Although the Baruch Plan enjoyed wide international support, it failed to emerge from the UNAEC because the Soviet Union planned to veto it in the Security Council. Still, it remained official American policy until 1953, when President Eisenhower made his "Atoms for Peace" proposal before the U.N. General Assembly. Eisenhower's proposal led eventually to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957. Under the "Atoms for Peace" program thousands of scientists from around the world were educated in nuclear science and then dispatched home, where many later pursued secret weapons programs in their home country.[3]
Efforts to conclude an international agreement to limit the spread of nuclear weapons did not begin until the early 1960s, after four nations (the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France) had acquired nuclear weapons (see List of countries with nuclear weapons for more information). Although these efforts stalled in the early 1960s, they renewed once again in 1964, after the People's Republic of China detonated a nuclear weapon and became the fifth nation to have acquired nuclear weapons. In 1968, governments represented at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC) finished negotiations on the text of the NPT. In June 1968, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the NPT with General Assembly Resolution 2373 (XXII), and in July 1968, the NPT opened for signature in Washington, DC, London and Moscow. The NPT entered into force in March 1970.
Since the mid-1970s, the primary focus of nonproliferation efforts has been to maintain, and even increase, international control over the fissile material and specialized technologies necessary to build such devices because these are the most difficult and expensive parts of a nuclear weapons program. The main materials whose generation and distribution is controlled are highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Other than the acquisition of these special materials, the scientific and technical means for weapons construction to develop rudimentary, but working, nuclear explosive devices are considered to be within the reach of industrialized nations.
Since its founding by the United Nations in 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has promoted two, sometimes contradictory, missions: on the one hand, the Agency seeks to promote and spread internationally the use of civilian nuclear energy; on the other hand, it seeks to prevent, or at least detect, the diversion of civilian nuclear energy to nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices or purposes unknown. The IAEA now operates a safeguards system as specified under Article III of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, which aims to ensure that civil stocks of uranium, plutonium, as well as facilities and technologies associated with these nuclear materials, are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs.
[edit] Dual use technology
Dual use technology refers to the possibility of military use of civilian nuclear power technology. The enriched uranium used in most nuclear reactors is not concentrated enough to build a bomb. Most nuclear reactors run on 4% enriched uranium; Little Boy used 80% enriched uranium; while lower enrichment levels could be used, the minimum bomb size would rapidly become unfeasibly large as the level was decreased. However, the same plants and technology used to enrich uranium for power generation can be used to make the highly enriched uranium needed to build a bomb.[4]
In addition, the plutonium produced in power reactors, if separated from spent fuel through chemical reprocessing (much less technically challenging than isotopic separation), can be used for a bomb. While the plutonium resulting from normal reactor fueling cycles is less than ideal for weapons use because of the concentration of Pu-240, a usable weapon can be produced from it.[5] If the reactor is operated on very short fueling cycles, bomb-grade plutonium can be produced. However, such operation would be virtually impossible to camouflage in many reactor designs, as the frequent shutdowns for refueling would be obvious, for instance in satellite photographs.
Fast breeder reactors require reprocessing, generate more plutonium than they consume (and more than non-breeders), and can produce better than weapons-grade plutonium. New technology for breeder reactors, like SSTAR, may lessen the risk of nuclear proliferation by providing sealed reactors with a limited self-contained fuel supply that could be remotely shut down in case of tampering.
[edit] International cooperation
[edit] Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
At present, 189 countries are States Parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, more commonly known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT. These include the five Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) recognized by the NPT: the People's Republic of China, France, Russian Federation, the UK, and the United States.
Notable non-signatories to the NPT are Israel, Pakistan, and India (the latter two have since tested nuclear weapons, while Israel is considered by most to be an unacknowledged nuclear weapons state). North Korea was once a signatory but withdrew in January 2003. The legality of North Korea's withdrawal is debatable but as of 9 October 2006, North Korea clearly possesses the capability to make a nuclear explosive device.
[edit] International Atomic Energy Agency
The IAEA was set up by unanimous resolution of the United Nations in 1957 to help nations develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Allied to this role is the administration of safeguards arrangements to provide assurance to the international community that individual countries are honoring their commitments under the treaty.
The IAEA regularly inspects civil nuclear facilities to verify the accuracy of documentation supplied to it. The agency checks inventories, and samples and analyzes materials. Safeguards are designed to deter diversion of nuclear material by increasing the risk of early detection. They are complemented by controls on the export of sensitive technology from countries such as UK and United States through voluntary bodies such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The main concern of the IAEA is that uranium not be enriched beyond what is necessary for commercial civil plants, and that plutonium which is produced by nuclear reactors not be refined into a form that would be suitable for bomb production.
[edit] Scope of safeguards
Traditional safeguards are arrangements to account for and control the use of nuclear materials. This verification is a key element in the international system which ensures that uranium in particular is used only for peaceful purposes.
Parties to the NPT agree to accept technical safeguard measures applied by the IAEA. These require that operators of nuclear facilities maintain and declare detailed accounting records of all movements and transactions involving nuclear material. Over 550 facilities and several hundred other locations are subject to regular inspection, and their records and the nuclear material being audited. Inspections by the IAEA are complemented by other measures such as surveillance cameras and instrumentation.
The inspections act as an alert system providing a warning of the possible diversion of nuclear material from peaceful activities. The system relies on;
All NPT non-weapons states must accept these full-scope safeguards. In the five weapons states plus the non-NPT states (India, Pakistan and Israel), facility-specific safeguards apply. IAEA inspectors regularly visit these facilities to verify completeness and accuracy of records.
The terms of the NPT cannot be enforced by the IAEA itself, nor can nations be forced to sign the treaty. In reality, as shown in Iraq and North Korea, safeguards can be backed up by diplomatic, political and economic measures.
While traditional safeguards easily verified the correctness of formal declarations by suspect states, in the 1990s attention turned to what might not have been declared. While accepting safeguards at declared facilities, Iraq had set up elaborate equipment elsewhere in an attempt to enrich uranium to weapons grade. North Korea attempted to use research reactors (not commercial electricity-generating reactors) and a reprocessing plant to produce some weapons-grade plutonium.
The weakness of the NPT regime lay in the fact that no obvious diversion of material was involved. The uranium used as fuel probably came from indigenous sources, and the nuclear facilities were built by the countries themselves without being declared or placed under safeguards. Iraq, as an NPT party, was obliged to declare all facilities but did not do so. Nevertheless, the activities were detected and brought under control using international diplomacy. In Iraq, a military defeat assisted this process.
In North Korea, the activities concerned took place before the conclusion of its NPT safeguards agreement. With North Korea, the promised provision of commercial power reactors appeared to resolve the situation for a time, but it later withdrew from the NPT and declared it had nuclear weapons.
[edit] Additional Protocol
In 1993 a program was initiated to strengthen and extend the classical safeguards system, and a model protocol was agreed by the IAEA Board of Governors 1997. The measures boosted the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities, including those with no connection to the civil fuel cycle.
Innovations were of two kinds. Some could be implemented on the basis of IAEA's existing legal authority through safeguards agreements and inspections. Others required further legal authority to be conferred through an Additional Protocol. This must be agreed by each non-weapons state with IAEA, as a supplement to any existing comprehensive safeguards agreement. Weapons states have agreed to accept the principles of the model additional protocol.
Key elements of the model Additional Protocol:
As of 9 October 2008, 127 countries have signed Additional protocols, and 88 have brought them into force[6]. The IAEA is also applying the measures of the Additional Protocol in Taiwan, China.[7] Among the leading countries that have not signed the Additional Protocol are Egypt, which says it will not sign until Israel accepts comprehensive IAEA safeguards,[8] and Brazil, which opposes making the protocol a requirement for international cooperation on enrichment and reprocessing,[9] but has not ruled out signing.[10]
[edit] Limitations of Safeguards
The greatest risk from nuclear weapons proliferation comes from countries which have not joined the NPT and which have significant unsafeguarded nuclear activities; India, Pakistan, and Israel fall within this category. While safeguards apply to some of their activities, others remain beyond scrutiny.
A further concern is that countries may develop various sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities and research reactors under full safeguards and then subsequently opt out of the NPT. Bilateral agreements, such as insisted upon by Australia and Canada for sale of uranium, address this by including fallback provisions, but many countries are outside the scope of these agreements. If a nuclear-capable country does leave the NPT, it is likely to be reported by the IAEA to the UN Security Council, just as if it were in breach of its safeguards agreement. Trade sanctions would then be likely.
IAEA safeguards, together with bilateral safeguards applied under the NPT can, and do, ensure that uranium supplied by countries such as Australia and Canada does not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation. In fact, the worldwide application of those safeguards and the substantial world trade in uranium for nuclear electricity make the proliferation of nuclear weapons much less likely.
The Additional Protocol, once it is widely in force, will provide credible assurance that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in the states concerned. This will be a major step forward in preventing nuclear proliferation.
[edit] Other developments
The Nuclear Suppliers Group communicated its guidelines, essentially a set of export rules, to the IAEA in 1978. These were to ensure that transfers of nuclear material or equipment would not be diverted to unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle or nuclear explosive activities, and formal government assurances to this effect were required from recipients. The Guidelines also recognised the need for physical protection measures in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and weapons-usable materials, and strengthened retransfer provisions. The group began with seven members – the United States, the former USSR, the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Japan – but now includes 46 countries including all five nuclear weapons states.
According to Kenneth D. Bergeron's Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power, tritium is not classified as a 'special nuclear material' but rather as a 'by-product'. It is seen as an important litmus test on the seriousness of the United State's intention to nuclear disarm. This radioactive super-heavy hydrogen isotope is used to boost the efficiency of fissile materials in nuclear weapons. The United States resumed tritium production in 2003 for the first time in 15 years. This could indicate that there is a potential nuclear arm stockpile replacement since the isotope naturally decays.
In May 1995, NPT parties reaffirmed their commitment to a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty to prohibit the production of any further fissile material for weapons. This aims to complement the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 and to codify commitments made by the United States, the UK, France and Russia to cease production of weapons material, as well as putting a similar ban on China. This treaty will also put more pressure on Israel, India and Pakistan to agree to international verification.
On 9 August 2005 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. [1] As of February 2006 Iran formally announced that uranium enrichment within their borders has continued. Iran claims it is for peaceful purposes but the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States claim the purpose is for nuclear weapons research and construction. [2]
[edit] Unsanctioned nuclear activity
| Weapons of mass destruction | ||
 | ||
| By type | ||
| Biological Chemical Nuclear Radiological | ||
| By country | ||
| ||
| List of treaties | ||
[edit] Iraq
Up to the late 1980s it was generally assumed that any undeclared nuclear activities would have to be based on the diversion of nuclear material from safeguards. States acknowledged the possibility of nuclear activities entirely separate from those covered by safeguards, but it was assumed they would be detected by national intelligence activities. There was no particular effort by IAEA to attempt to detect them.
Iraq had been making efforts to secure a nuclear potential since the 1960s. In the late 1970s a specialised plant, Osiraq, was constructed near Baghdad. The plant was attacked during the Iran–Iraq War and was destroyed by Israeli bombers in June 1981.
Not until the 1990 NPT Review Conference did some states raise the possibility of making more use of (for example) provisions for "special inspections" in existing NPT Safeguards Agreements. Special inspections can be undertaken at locations other than those where safeguards routinely apply, if there is reason to believe there may be undeclared material or activities.
After inspections in Iraq following the UN Gulf War cease-fire resolution showed the extent of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program, it became clear that the IAEA would have to broaden the scope of its activities. Iraq was an NPT Party, and had thus agreed to place all its nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. But the inspections revealed that it had been pursuing an extensive clandestine uranium enrichment programme, as well as a nuclear weapons design programme.
The main thrust of Iraq's uranium enrichment program was the development of technology for electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) of indigenous uranium. This uses the same principles as a mass spectrometer (albeit on a much larger scale). Ions of uranium-238 and uranium-235 are separated because they describe arcs of different radii when they move through a magnetic field. This process was used in the Manhattan Project to make the highly enriched uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb, but was abandoned soon afterwards.
The Iraqis did the basic research work at their nuclear research establishment at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, and were building two full-scale facilities at Tarmiya and Ash Sharqat, north of Baghdad. However, when the war broke out, only a few separators had been installed at Tarmiya, and none at Ash Sharqat.
The Iraqis were also very interested in centrifuge enrichment, and had been able to acquire some components including some carbon-fibre rotors, which they were at an early stage of testing.
They were clearly in violation of their NPT and safeguards obligations, and the IAEA Board of Governors ruled to that effect. The UN Security Council then ordered the IAEA to remove, destroy or render harmless Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. This was done by mid 1998, but Iraq then ceased all cooperation with the UN, so the IAEA withdrew from this work.
The revelations from Iraq provided the impetus for a very far-reaching reconsideration of what safeguards are intended to achieve.
See also: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
[edit] North Korea
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) acceded to the NPT in 1985 as a condition for the supply of a nuclear power station by the USSR. However, it delayed concluding its NPT Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, a process which should take only 18 months, until April 1992.
During that period, it brought into operation a small gas-cooled, graphite-moderated, natural-uranium (metal) fuelled "Experimental Power Reactor" of about 25 MWt (5 MWe), based on the UK Magnox design. While this was a well-suited design to start a wholly indigenous nuclear reactor development, it also exhibited all the features of a small plutonium production reactor for weapons purposes. North Korea also made substantial progress in the construction of two larger reactors designed on the same principles, a prototype of about 200 MWt (50 MWe), and a full-scale version of about 800 MWt (200 MWe). They made only slow progress; construction halted on both in 1994 and has not resumed. Both reactors have degraded considerably since that time and would take significant efforts to refurbish.
In addition it completed and commissioned a reprocessing plant that makes the Magnox spent nuclear fuel safe, recovering uranium and plutonium. That plutonium, if the fuel was only irradiated to a very low burn-up, would have been in a form very suitable for weapons. Although all these facilities at Yongbyon were to be under safeguards, there was always the risk that at some stage, the DPRK would withdraw from the NPT and use the plutonium for weapons.
One of the first steps in applying NPT safeguards is for the IAEA to verify the initial stocks of uranium and plutonium to ensure that all the nuclear material in the country have been declared for safeguards purposes. While undertaking this work in 1992, IAEA inspectors found discrepancies which indicated that the reprocessing plant had been used more often than the DPRK had declared, which suggested that the DPRK could have weapons-grade plutonium which it had not declared to the IAEA. Information passed to the IAEA by a Member State (as required by the IAEA) supported that suggestion by indicating that the DPRK had two undeclared waste or other storage sites.
In February 1993 the IAEA called on the DPRK to allow special inspections of the two sites so that the initial stocks of nuclear material could be verified. The DPRK refused, and on 12 March announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT (three months' notice is required). In April 1993 the IAEA Board concluded that the DPRK was in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations and reported the matter to the UN Security Council. In June 1993 the DPRK announced that it had "suspended" its withdrawal from the NPT, but subsequently claimed a "special status" with respect to its safeguards obligations. This was rejected by IAEA.
Once the DPRK's non-compliance had been reported to the UN Security Council, the essential part of the IAEA's mission had been completed. Inspections in the DPRK continued, although inspectors were increasingly hampered in what they were permitted to do by the DPRK's claim of a "special status". However, some 8,000 corroding fuel rods associated with the experimental reactor have remained under close surveillance.
Following bilateral negotiations between the United States and the DPRK, and the conclusion of the Agreed Framework in October 1994, the IAEA has been given additional responsibilities. The agreement requires a freeze on the operation and construction of the DPRK's plutonium production reactors and their related facilities, and the IAEA is responsible for monitoring the freeze until the facilities are eventually dismantled. The DPRK remains uncooperative with the IAEA verification work and has yet to comply with its safeguards agreement.
While Iraq was defeated in a war, allowing the UN the opportunity to seek out and destroy its nuclear weapons programme as part of the cease-fire conditions, the DPRK was not defeated, nor was it vulnerable to other measures, such as trade sanctions. It can scarcely afford to import anything, and sanctions on vital commodities, such as oil, would either be ineffective, or risk provoking war.
Ultimately, the DPRK was persuaded to stop what appeared to be its nuclear weapons programme in exchange, under the agreed framework, for about US$5 billion in energy-related assistance. This included two 1000 MWe light water nuclear power reactors based on an advanced U.S. System-80 design.
In January 2003 the DPRK withdrew from the NPT. In response a series of discussions between the DPRK, the United States, and China, a series of six-party talks (the parties being the DPRK, the ROK, China, Japan, the United States and Russia) were held in Beijing; the first beginning in April 2004 concerning North Korea's weapons program.
On 10 January 2005 North Korea declared that it was in the possession of nuclear weapons. On September 19, 2005, the fourth round of the Six-Party Talks ended with a Joint Statement in which North Korea agreed to end its nuclear programs and return to the NPT in exchange for diplomatic, energy and economic assistance. However, by the end of 2005 the DPRK had halted all six-party talks because the United States froze certain DPRK international financial assets such as those in a bank in Macau.
On 9 October 2006 North Korea announced that it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapon test. On 18 December 2006, the six-party talks finally resumed. On February 13, 2007 the parties announced "Initial Actions" to implement the 2005 Joint Statement including shutdown and disablement of North Korean nuclear facilities in exchange for energy assistance. Reacting to UN sanctions imposed after missile tests in April 2009, North Korea withdrew from the Six-Party talks, restarted its nuclear facilities and conducted a second nuclear test on May 25, 2009.
See also: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and Six-party talks
[edit] South Africa
In 1991, South Africa acceded to the NPT, concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and submitted a report on its nuclear material subject to safeguards. At the time, the state had a nuclear power programme producing nearly 10% of the country's electricity, whereas Iraq and North Korea only had research reactors.
The IAEA's initial verification task was complicated by South Africa's announcement that between 1979 and 1989 it built and then dismantled a number of nuclear weapons. South Africa asked the IAEA to verify the conclusion of its weapons programme. In 1995 the IAEA declared that it was satisfied all materials were accounted for and the weapons programme had been terminated and dismantled.
South Africa has signed the NPT, and now holds the distinction of being the only known state to have indigenously produced nuclear weapons, and then verifiably dismantled them.[11]
[edit] United States cooperation on nuclear weapons with the United Kingdom
The United States has given the UK considerable assistance with nuclear weapon design and construction since the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement. In 1974 a CIA proliferation assessment noted that "In many cases [Britain's sensitive technology in nuclear and missile fields] is based on technology received from the United States and could not legitimately be passed on without U.S. permission."[12]
The U.S. President authorized the transfer of "nuclear weapon parts" to the UK between at least the years 1975 to 1996.[13][14] The UK National Audit Office noted that most of the UK Trident warhead development and production expenditure was incurred in the United States, which would supply "certain warhead-related components".[15][16] Some of the fissile materials for the UK Trident warhead were purchased from the United States.[16] Declassified U.S. Department of Energy documents indicate the UK Trident warhead system was involved in non-nuclear design activities alongside the U.S. W76 nuclear warhead fitted in some U.S. Navy Trident missiles,[17] leading the Federation of American Scientists to speculate that the UK warhead may share design information from the W76.[18]
Under the Mutual Defence Agreement 5.37 tonnes of UK-produced plutonium was sent to the United States in return for 6.7 kg of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium over the period 1960-1979. A further 0.47 tonne of plutonium was swapped between the UK and United States for reasons that remain classified.[19] Some of the UK produced plutonium was used in 1962 by the United States for a nuclear weapon test of reactor-grade plutonium .[20]
The United States has supplied nuclear weapon delivery systems to support the UK nuclear forces since before the signing of the NPT. The renewal of this agreement is due to take place through the second decade of the 21st century. [3] [4]
[edit] Non-signatory States
India, Pakistan and Israel have been "threshold" countries in terms of the international non-proliferation regime. They possess or are quickly capable of assembling one or more nuclear weapons. They have remained outside the 1970 NPT. They are thus largely excluded from trade in nuclear plant or materials, except for safety-related devices for a few safeguarded facilities.
In May 1998 India and Pakistan each exploded several nuclear devices underground. This heightened concerns regarding an arms race between them, with Pakistan involving the People's Republic of China, an acknowledged nuclear weapons state. Both countries are opposed to the NPT as it stands, and India has consistently attacked the Treaty since its inception in 1970 labeling it as a lopsided treaty in favor of the nuclear powers.
Relations between the two countries are tense and hostile, and the risks of nuclear conflict between them have long been considered quite high. Kashmir is a prime cause of bilateral tension, its sovereignty being in dispute since 1948. There is persistent low level military conflict due to Pakistan backing an insurgency there and the disputed status of Kashmir.
Both engaged in a conventional arms race in the 1980s, including sophisticated technology and equipment capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In the 1990s the arms race quickened. In 1994 India reversed a four-year trend of reduced allocations for defence, and despite its much smaller economy, Pakistan was expected to push its own expenditures yet higher. Both have lost their patrons: India, the former USSR, and Pakistan, the United States.
But it is the growth and modernization of China's nuclear arsenal and its assistance with Pakistan's nuclear power programme and, reportedly, with missile technology, which exacerbate Indian concerns. In particular, Pakistan is aided by China's People's Liberation Army, which operates somewhat autonomously within that country as an exporter of military material.
[edit] India
Nuclear power for civil use is well established in India. Its civil nuclear strategy has been directed towards complete independence in the nuclear fuel cycle, necessary because of its outspoken rejection of the NPT. This self-sufficiency extends from uranium exploration and mining through fuel fabrication, heavy water production, reactor design and construction, to reprocessing and waste management. It has a small fast breeder reactor and is planning a much larger one. It is also developing technology to utilise its abundant resources of thorium as a nuclear fuel.
India has 14 small nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, two larger ones under construction, and ten more planned. The 14 operating ones (2548 MWe total) comprise:
The two under construction and two of the planned ones are 450 MWe versions of these 200 MWe domestic products. Construction has been seriously delayed by financial and technical problems. In 2001 a final agreement was signed with Russia for the country's first large nuclear power plant, comprising two VVER-1000 reactors, under a Russian-financed US$3 billion contract. The first unit is due to be commissioned in 2007. A further two Russian units are under consideration for the site.
Nuclear power supplied 3.1% of India's electricity in 2000 and this is expected to reach 10% by 2005. Its industry is largely without IAEA safeguards, though a few plants (see above) are under facility-specific safeguards. As a result India's nuclear power programme proceeds largely without fuel or technological assistance from other countries.
Its weapons material appears to come from a Canadian-designed 40MW "research" reactor which started up in 1960, well before the NPT, and a 100MW indigenous unit in operation since 1985. Both use local uranium, as India does not import any nuclear fuel. It is estimated that India may have built up enough weapons-grade plutonium for a hundred nuclear warheads.
It is widely believed that the nuclear programs of India and Pakistan used CANDU reactors to produce fissionable materials for their weapons; however, this is not accurate. Both Canada (by supplying the 40 MW research reactor) and the United States (by supplying 21 tons of heavy water) supplied India with the technology necessary to create a nuclear weapons program, dubbed CIRUS (Canada-India Reactor, United States). Canada sold India the reactor on the condition that the reactor and any by-products would be "employed for peaceful purposes only.". Similarly, the United States sold India heavy water for use in the reactor "only... in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes". India, in violation of these agreements, used the Canadian-supplied reactor and American-supplied heavy water to produce plutonium for their first nuclear explosion, Smiling Buddha.[21] The Indian government controversially justified this, however, by claiming that Smiling Buddha was a "peaceful nuclear explosion."
The country has at least three other research reactors including the tiny one which is exploring the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel, by breeding fissile U-233. In addition, an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle is under development.
India exploded a nuclear device in 1974, the so-called Smiling Buddha test, which it has consistently claimed was for peaceful purposes. Others saw it as a response to China's nuclear weapons capability. It was then universally perceived, notwithstanding official denials, to possess, or to be able to quickly assemble, nuclear weapons. In 1997 it deployed its own medium-range missile and is now developing a long-range missile capable of reaching targets in China's industrial heartland.
In 1995 the United States quietly intervened to head off a proposed nuclear test. However, in 1998 there were five more tests in Operation Shakti. These were unambiguously military, including one claimed to be of a sophisticated thermonuclear device, and their declared purpose was "to help in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields and different delivery systems".
Indian security policies are driven by:
It perceives nuclear weapons as a cost-effective political counter to China's nuclear and conventional weaponry, and the effects of its nuclear weapons policy in provoking Pakistan is, by some accounts, considered incidental. India has had an unhappy relationship with China. After an uneasy ceasefire ended the 1962 war, relations between the two nations were frozen until 1998. Since then a degree of high-level contact has been established and a few elementary confidence-building measures put in place. China still occupies some territory which it captured during the aforementioned war, claimed by India, and India still occupies some territory claimed by China. Its nuclear weapon and missile support for Pakistan is a major bone of contention.
American President George W. Bush met with India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss India's involvement with nuclear weapons. The two countries agreed that the United States would give nuclear power assistance to India.[citation needed]
[edit] Pakistan
.jpg)
Pakistan is believed to have produced the material for its weapons using Chinese help.[22]
In Pakistan, nuclear power supplies only 1.7% of the country's electricity. It has one small (125 MWe) Canadian PHWR nuclear power reactor from 1971 which is under international safeguards, and a 300 MWe PWR supplied by China under safeguards, which started up in May 2000. A third one, a Chinese PWR, is planned. Enriched fuel for the PWRs will be imported from China.
It also has a 9 MW research reactor of 1965 vintage, and there are persistent reports of another "multipurpose" reactor, a 50 MW PHWR near Khushab, which is presumed to have potential for producing weapons plutonium.
Pakistan's concentration is on weapons technology, particularly the production of highly enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons, utilising indigenous uranium. It has at least one small centrifuge enrichment plant. In 1990 the U.S. Administration cut off aid because it was unable to certify that Pakistan was not pursuing a policy of manufacturing nuclear weapons. This was relaxed late in 2001. In 1996 the United States froze export loans to China because it was allegedly supplying centrifuge enrichment technology to Pakistan. Indian opinion is in no doubt about Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability.
Pakistan has made it clear since early 1996 that it had done the basic development work, and that if India staged a nuclear test, Pakistan would immediately start assembling its own nuclear explosive device. It is assumed to now have enough highly-enriched uranium for up to forty nuclear warheads.
In April 1998 Pakistan test fired a long-range missile capable of reaching Madras in southern India, pushing home the point by naming it after a 12th century Muslim conqueror. This development removed India's main military advantage over Pakistan. Pakistan's security concerns derive from India's possession of a nuclear weapons capability.
In May 1998 Pakistan announced that they had conducted six underground tests in the Chagai Hills, five on the 28th and one on the 30th of that month. Seismic events consistent with these claims were recorded.
[edit] Pakistan-North Korea Nuclear Proliferation and Missile Cooperation
| | This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008) |
Pakistan and North Korea's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons have had some similarities. Both countries first attempted the plutonium route to acquire such weapons and, when this was thwarted, turned towards uranium enrichment.
[edit] Pakistan
 | This article may require copy-editing for grammar. You can assist by editing it now. (January 2009) |
In the 1970s, Pakistan first focused on the plutonium route. They expected to obtain the fissile material from a reprocessing plant provided by France. This plan failed due to U.S. intervention. Pakistan, not wanting to give up, redoubled its efforts to obtain uranium enrichment technology. The main efforts towards this direction were done under Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. Dr. Khan had earlier worked with Fysisch Dynamisch Onderzoekslaboratorium (FDO). FDO was a subsidiary of the Dutch firm VMF-Stork based in Amsterdam. From 1972 to 1975 Dr. Khan had access to classified data used to enrich ordinary uranium to weapons grade concentrations. FDO was working on the development of ultra high-speed centrifuges for URENCO.
In 1974 while he was on secondment for 17 days as a translator to the URENCO plant in Almelo, he obtained photographs and documents of the plant. Dr. Khan returned to Pakistan in 1976 and initiated the Uranium enrichment program on the basis of the technology he had stolen from his previous employer. Dr. Khan relied on nuclear technology supplied by American, Canadian, Swiss, German, Dutch, British, Japanese and Russian companies. Dr. Khan said of the assistance he got from the Japanese, "Next month the Japanese would come here and all the work would be done under their supervision." After the British Government stopped the British subsidiary of the American Emerson Electric Co from shipping the nuclear technology to Pakistan, Dr. Khan describes his frustration with a supplier from Germany as "That man from the German team was unethical. When he did not get the order from us, he wrote a letter to a Labour Party member and questions were asked in [British] Parliament."[3]
His efforts made Dr. Khan into a national hero. In 1981, as a tribute, the president of Pakistan, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, renamed the enrichment plant the A. Q. Khan Research Laboratories.
In 2003, IAEA unearthed a nuclear black market with close ties to Pakistan. It was widely believed to have direct involvement of the government of Pakistan. This claim could not be verified due to the refusal of the government of Pakistan to allow IAEA to interview the alleged head of the nuclear black market, who happened to be no other than Dr. Khan. Dr. Khan later confessed to his crimes on national television, bailing out the government by taking full responsibility. He confessed to nuclear proliferation from Pakistan to Iran and North Korea. He was immediately given presidential immunity. Exact nature of the involvement at the governmental level is still unclear, but the manner in which the government acted cast doubt on the sincerity of Pakistan.
[edit] North Korea
North Korea joined the NPT in 1985 and had subsequently signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. However it was believed that North Korea was diverting plutonium extracted from the fuel of its reactor at Yongbyon, for use in nuclear weapons. The subsequent confrontation with IAEA on the issue of inspections and suspected violations, resulted in North Korea threatening to withdraw from the NPT in 1993. This led to negotiations with the United States resulting in the Agreed Framework of 1994, which provided for IAEA safeguards being applied to its reactors and spent fuel rods. These spent fuel rods were sealed in canisters by the United States to prevent North Korea from extracting plutonium from them. North Korea had to therefore freeze its plutonium programme.
During this period Pakistan-North Korea cooperation in missile technology transfer was being established. A high level Pakistani military delegation visited North Korea in August-September 1992, reportedly to discuss the supply Scud missile technology to Pakistan. In 1993, PM Benazir Bhutto traveled to China and North Korea. The visits are believed to be related to the subsequent acquisition of Ghauri (North Korean No-dong) missiles by Pakistan. During the period 1992-1994, A.Q. Khan was reported to have visited North Korea thirteen times. The missile cooperation program with North Korea was under Dr. A. Q. Khan's Kahuta Research Laboratories. At this time China was under U.S. pressure not to supply the M series of missiles to Pakistan. This forced the latter (possibly with Chinese connivance) to approach North Korea for missile transfers. Reports indicate that North Korea was willing to supply missile sub-systems including rocket motors, inertial guidance systems, control and testing equipment of Scud SSMs for US$ 50 million.
It is not clear what North Korea got in return. Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. in Jane's Defence Weekly (27 November 2002) reports that Western analysts had begun to question what North Korea received in payment for the missiles; many suspected it was nuclear technology and components. Khan's KRL was in charge of both Pakistan's uranium enrichment program and also of the missile program with North Korea. It is therefore likely during this period that cooperation in nuclear technology between Pakistan and North Korea was initiated. Western intelligence agencies began to notice exchange of personnel, technology and components between KRL and entities of the North Korean 2nd Economic Committee (responsible for weapons production).
A New York Times report on 18 October 2002 quoted U.S. intelligence officials having stated that Pakistan was a major supplier of critical equipment to North Korea. The report added that equipment such as gas centrifuges appeared to have been "part of a barter deal" in which North Korea supplied Pakistan with missiles. Separate reports indicate (Washington Times, 22 November 2002) that U.S. intelligence had as early as 1999 picked up signs that North Korea was continuing to develop nuclear arms. Other reports also indicate that North Korea had been working covertly to develop an enrichment capability for nuclear weapons for at least five years and had used technology obtained from Pakistan (Washington Times, 18 October 2002).
[edit] Nuclear arms control in the region
The public stance of the two states on non-proliferation differs markedly. Pakistan appears to have dominated a continuing propaganda debate.
Pakistan has initiated a series of regional security proposals. It has repeatedly proposed a nuclear free zone in South Asia and has proclaimed its willingness to engage in nuclear disarmament and to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty if India would do so. It has endorsed a United States proposal for a regional five power conference to consider non-proliferation in South Asia.
India has taken the view that solutions to regional security issues should be found at the international rather than the regional level, since its chief concern is with China. It therefore rejects Pakistan's proposals.
Instead, the 'Gandhi Plan', put forward in 1988, proposed the revision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it regards as inherently discriminatory in favor of the nuclear-weapon States, and a timetable for complete nuclear weapons disarmament. It endorsed early proposals for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and for an international convention to ban the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes, known as the 'cut-off' convention.
The United States for some years, especially under the Clinton administration, pursued a variety of initiatives to persuade India and Pakistan to abandon their nuclear weapons programs and to accept comprehensive international safeguards on all their nuclear activities. To this end, the Clinton administration proposed a conference of the five nuclear-weapon states, Japan, Germany, India and Pakistan.
India refused this and similar previous proposals, and countered with demands that other potential weapons states, such as Iran and North Korea, should be invited, and that regional limitations would only be acceptable if they were accepted equally by China. The United States would not accept the participation of Iran and North Korea and these initiatives have lapsed.
Another, more recent approach, centers on 'capping' the production of fissile material for weapons purposes, which would hopefully be followed by 'roll back'. To this end, India and the United States jointly sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution in 1993 calling for negotiations for a 'cut-off' convention. Should India and Pakistan join such a convention, they would have to agree to halt the production of fissile materials for weapons and to accept international verification on their relevant nuclear facilities (enrichment and reprocessing plants). It appears that India is now prepared to join negotiations regarding such a Cut-off Treaty, under the UN Conference on Disarmament.
Bilateral confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan to reduce the prospects of confrontation have been limited. In 1990 each side ratified a treaty not to attack the other's nuclear installations, and at the end of 1991 they provided one another with a list showing the location of all their nuclear plants, even though the respective lists were regarded as not being wholly accurate. Early in 1994 India proposed a bilateral agreement for a 'no first use' of nuclear weapons and an extension of the 'no attack' treaty to cover civilian and industrial targets as well as nuclear installations.
Having promoted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty since 1954, India dropped its support in 1995 and in 1996 attempted to block the Treaty. Following the 1998 tests the question has been reopened and both Pakistan and India have indicated their intention to sign the CTBT. Indian ratification may be conditional upon the five weapons states agreeing to specific reductions in nuclear arsenals. The UN Conference on Disarmament has also called upon both countries "to accede without delay to the Non-Proliferation Treaty", presumably as non-weapons states.
[edit] Israel
Israel is also thought to possess an arsenal of potentially up to several hundred nuclear warheads and associated delivery systems, but this has never been openly confirmed or denied.
An Israeli nuclear installation is located about ten kilometers to the south of Dimona, the Negev Nuclear Research Center. Its construction commenced in 1958, with French assistance. The official reason given by the Israeli and French governments was to build a nuclear reactor to power a "desalination plant", in order to "green the Negev". The purpose of the Dimona plant is widely assumed to be the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and the majority of defense experts have concluded that it does in fact do that. However, the Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny this publicly, a policy it refers to as "ambiguity".
Norway sold 20 tonnes of heavy water needed for the reactor to Israel in 1959 and 1960 in a secret deal. There were no "safeguards" required in this deal to prevent usage of the heavy water for non-peaceful purposes. The British newspaper Daily Express accused Israel of working on a bomb in 1960. [5] When the United States intelligence community discovered the purpose of the Dimona plant in the early 1960s, it demanded that Israel agree to international inspections. Israel agreed, but on a condition that U.S., rather than IAEA, inspectors were used, and that Israel would receive advanced notice of all inspections.
Some claim that because Israel knew the schedule of the inspectors' visits, it was able to hide the alleged purpose of the site from the inspectors by installing temporary false walls and other devices before each inspection. The inspectors eventually informed the U.S. government that their inspections were useless due to Israeli restrictions on what areas of the facility they could inspect. In 1969, the United States terminated the inspections.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the Dimona plant, revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program. Israeli agents arrested him from Italy, drugged him and transported him to Israel, and an Israeli court then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage[citation needed], and sentenced him to eighteen years imprisonment. He was freed on 21 April 2004, but was severely limited by the Israeli government. He was arrested again on 11 November 2004, though formal charges were not immediately filed.
Comments on photographs taken by Mordechai Vanunu inside the Negev Nuclear Research Center have been made by prominent scientists. British nuclear weapons scientist Frank Barnaby, who questioned Vanunu over several days, estimated Israel had enough plutonium for about 150 weapons.[23] Ted Taylor, a bomb designer employed by the United States of America has confirmed the several hundred warhead estimate based on Vanunu's photographs.[citation needed]
See also: Israel and weapons of mass destruction
[edit] Russia
Security of nuclear weapons in Russia remains a matter of concern. According to high-ranking Russian SVR defector Tretyakov, he had a meeting with two Russian businessman representing a state-created Chetek corporation in 1991. They came up with a project of destroying large quantities of chemical wastes collected from Western countries at the island of Novaya Zemlya (a test place for Soviet nuclear weapons) using an underground nuclear blast. The project was rejected by Canadian representatives, but one of the businessmen told Tretyakov that he keeps his own nuclear bomb at his dacha outside Moscow. Tretyakov thought that man was insane, but the "businessmen" (Vladimir K. Dmitriev) replied: "Do not be so naive. With economic conditions the way they are in Russia today, anyone with enough money can buy a nuclear bomb. It's no big deal really" [24].
[edit] Arguments in favor of proliferation
There has been much debate in the academic study of International Security as to the advisability of proliferation. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Gen. Pierre Marie Gallois of France, an adviser to Charles DeGaulle, argued in books like The Balance of Terror: Strategy for the Nuclear Age (1961) that mere possession of a nuclear arsenal, what the French called the force de frappe, was enough to ensure deterrence, and thus concluded that the spread of nuclear weapons could increase international stability.
Some very prominent neo-realist scholars, such as Kenneth Waltz, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University, and John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, continue to argue along the lines of Gallois (though these scholars rarely acknowledge their intellectual debt to Gallois and his contemporaries). Specifically, these scholars advocate some forms of nuclear proliferation, arguing that it will decrease the likelihood of war, especially in troubled regions of the world. Aside from the majority opinion which opposes proliferation in any form, there are two schools of thought on the matter. Those, like Mearsheimer, who favor selective proliferation, and those such as Waltz, who advocate a laissez-faire attitude to programs like North Korea's.
[edit] Total proliferation
In embryo, Waltz argues that the logic of mutually assured destruction (MAD) should work in all security environments, regardless of historical tensions or recent hostility. He sees the Cold War as the ultimate proof of MAD logic – the only occasion when enmity between two Great Powers did not result in military conflict. This was, he argues, because nuclear weapons promote caution in decision-makers. Neither Washington nor Moscow would risk nuclear Armageddon to advance territorial or power goals, hence a peaceful stalemate ensued (Waltz and Sagan (2003), p. 24). Waltz believes there to be no reason why this effect would not occur in all circumstances.
[edit] Selective proliferation
John Mearsheimer would not support Waltz's optimism in the majority of potential instances; however, he has argued for nuclear proliferation as policy in certain places, such as post-Cold War Europe. In two famous articles, Professor Mearsheimer opines that Europe is bound to return to its pre-Cold War environment of regular conflagration and suspicion at some point in the future. He advocates arming both Germany and the Ukraine with nuclear weaponry in order to achieve a balance of power between these states in the east and France/Britain in the west. If this does not occur, he is certain that war will eventually break out on the European continent (Mearsheimer (1990), pp. 5–56 and (1993), pp. 50–66).
Another separate argument against Waltz's open proliferation and in favor of Mearsheimer's selective distribution is the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Some countries included in the aforementioned laissez-faire distribution could predispose the transfer of nuclear materials or a bomb falling into the hands of groups not affiliated with any governments. Such countries would not have the political will or ability to safeguard attempts at devices being transferred to a third party. Not being deterred by self-annihilation, terrorism groups could push forth their own nuclear agendas or be used as shadow fronts to carry out the attack plans by mentioned unstable governments.
[edit] Arguments against both positions
There are numerous arguments presented against both selective and total proliferation, generally targeting the very neorealist assumptions (such as the primacy of military security in state agendas, the weakness of international institutions, and the long-run unimportance of economic integration and globalization to state strategy) its proponents tend to make. With respect to Mearsheimer's specific example of Europe, many economists and neoliberals argue that the economic integration of Europe through the development of the European Union has made war in most of the European continent so disastrous economically so as to serve as an effective deterrent. Constructivists take this one step further, frequently arguing that the development of EU political institutions has led or will lead to the development of a nascent European identity, which most states on the European continent wish to partake in to some degree or another, and which makes all states within or aspiring to be within the EU regard war between them as unthinkable.
As for Waltz, the general opinion is that most states are not in a position to safely guard against nuclear use, that he under-estimates the long-standing antipathy in many regions, and that weak states will be unable to prevent - or will actively provide for - the disastrous possibility of nuclear terrorism. Waltz has dealt with all of these objections at some point in his work; though to many, he has not adequately responded (Betts (2000)).
The Learning Channel documentary Doomsday: "On The Brink" illustrated 40 years of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons accidents. Even the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident demonstrated a potential scenario in which Russian democratization and military downsizing at the end of the Cold War did not eliminate the danger of accidental nuclear war through command and control errors. After asking: might a future Russian ruler or renegade Russian general be tempted to use nuclear weapons to make foreign policy? the documentary writers revealed a greater danger of Russian security over its nuclear stocks, but especially the ultimate danger of human nature to want the ultimate weapon of mass destruction to exercise political and military power. Future world leaders might not understand how close the Soviets, Russians, and Americans were to doomsday, how easy it all seemed because apocalypse was avoided for a mere 40 years between rivals, politicians not terrorists, who loved their children and did not want to die, against 30,000 years of human prehistory. History and military experts agree that proliferation can be slowed, but never stopped (technology cannot be uninvented).[25]
[edit] Proliferation begets proliferation
Proliferation begets proliferation is a concept described by Scott Sagan in his article, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? This concept can be described as a strategic chain reaction. If one state produces a nuclear weapon it creates almost a domino effect within the region. States in the region will seek to acquire nuclear weapons to balance or eliminate the security threat. Sagan describes this reaction best in his article when he states, "Every time one state develops nuclear weapons to balance against its main rival, it also creates a nuclear threat to another region, which then has to initiate its own nuclear weapons program to maintain its national security" (Sagan, pg. 70). Going back through history we can see how this has taken place. When the United States demonstrated that it had nuclear power capabilities after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Russians started to develop their program in preparation for the Cold War. With the Russian military buildup, France and Great Britain perceived this as a security threat and therefore they pursued nuclear weapons (Sagan, pg 71).
[edit] See also
[edit] References
[edit] External links and references
 | Wikinews has related news: |
Organizations
Articles, Books and Other Media
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
position: a nuclear India is a bad thing
In a ZNet Commentary on April 21, 2006 on __The US – India Nuclear Agreement, Vandana Shiva? wrote that:
"India, a civilisation built on renewable energy and biodiversity economies is currently at a cross roads - will she continue on its renewable energy path based on biodiversity, and energy equity, or will she follow the non-sustainable energy path of the west, based on fossil fuels, nuclear power and energy slaves?
India is not among the historical carbon dioxide polluters of the world because through culture and economic policy, preference was given to localised, decentralised labour intensive economies, not centralised, industrial economies which displace people by depending on non-renewable energy inputs.
However, with globalisation and neo liberal economic reform, the renewable is being replaced by the non-renewable, people are being displaced by fossil fuels, decentralised and diverse systems are being replaced by centralised monocultures of transport, manufacture, and agriculture.
Not only does this add to the threats of climate change, it also usurps the ecological space for tribals, small scale farmers, and women since the land use for an energy intensive economy based on energy slaves must shift from peoples' sustenance needs to producing and processing industrial, commercial energy and dumping waste, or building superhighways, or growing monoculture plantations for "biofuels" to maintain the infrastructure of the fossil fuel economy in a period which will witness the end of cheap oil.
In 1973, I was training to be a nuclear physicist. Some of my most exciting times were the periods I spent at the Bhabha Atomic Center in Bombay, working as a summer trainee in the experimental fast breeder reactor. But I gave up a career in nuclear physics after my sister, Mira, a medical doctor, humbled me.
She pointed out that while I was trained in all the sophisticated minutiae of energy transitions and chain reactions, I was illiterate when it came to nuclear hazards. It was that lesson in humility that precipitated my shift toward sciences that defend life and away from those that annihilate life. It also made me more conscious of the links between knowledge and power, the construction of social irresponsibility built into war - and profit-centered science, and the field's willful mystification of the public regarding all matters of social consequence, which shuts out democratic control of dangerous technologies.
When the nuclear tests were carried out by India in Pokhran on May 11, 1998, the tests were described as "explosions of self-esteem" and "megatonnes of prestige". The major media dubbed the bomb a "Hindu bomb".
By May 30, Pakistan had announced six nuclear tests at Chagai. This new bomb was deemed an Islamic bomb by the same media. This identical nuclear threat could not be interpreted as a defense of cultural "difference". The masculine, militaristic minds on both sides of the border that divided our people half a century ago saw the bomb as a symbol of sectarian power. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) announced that with the nuclear tests, India had finally demonstrated its "manhood".
These tests also confirmed how India's position on nuclear arms has undergone a radical shift. The search for peaceful power has been replaced by the display of violent power. Models of nuclear missiles have become popular phallic symbols of militarized patriarchal power to mobilize hate.
It is thought that India has between seventy five and a hundred nuclear warheads, for which the delivery systems are one Agni Prithvi and one Mirage 2000, under the doctrine of "No First Use".
Pakistan has between twenty five and fifty nuclear weapons, its delivery systems are the missiles Ghauri and Ghaznavi, and F-16 aircraft. The Indian Agni's range is 2000 Km, and the Pakistani Ghaniri's range is 1500 km. Either country's missiles could strike in fifteen minutes. The estimated number of people who would be killed varies between 2 million and 12 million. Gandhi has said that nuclear weapons "represent the most sinful and diabolical use of science".
On July 14, 1957, Nehru had said in the Lok Sabha, the Indian House of Representatives, "We have declared quite clearly that we are not interested in making atom bombs, even if we have the capacity to do so, and that in no event will we use nuclear energy for destructive purposes….. I hope that will be the policy of all future governments."
Following the tests, Japan, the United States, and many other countries imposed sanctions and cut off aid, loans, and credit to both India and Pakistan. In June of 1998, the UN Security Council passed a resolution, confirmed by the UN General Assembly in November that year that condemned the nuclear tests and called for restraint.
The U.S - India nuclear agreement is in effect a reversal of India's policies and an expansion of nuclear power in India and nuclear fuel sales to India. The agreement was signed on July 18th, 2005 and finalised during President Bush's India visit in March 2006. It is being offered as a "clean energy" - an alternative to fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. It is aimed at addressed the two challenges of energy security and safeguarding the environment. As Lalit Mansingh, who was India's Ambassador to U.S. states
"The Indo-US nuclear deal is a significant achievement. Not only does it offer the most promising solution for India's looming energy crisis, it implicitly recognises India as a nuclear weapon state, thereby ending their decades of nuclear isolation and technology denial" (India Today, March 6, 2006)
In the agreement, Bush committed that he would work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India, and would work with allies to adjust international regimes to enter into nuclear trade with India and also supply it with nuclear fuel. India has 15 civilian nuclear power reactors that generate 3360 MW of power. Six of these civilian reactors have already been placed under IAEA safeguards, nine additional reactors will be placed under safeguards in perpetuity.
India will not accept safeguards on the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor and the Fast Breeder Test Reactor, both located at Kalpakkam. 65% India's reactors would be under international scrutiny by 2014.
Cirus and Dhruva are two known military reactors which produce weapons grade plutonium. Under the agreement, India will shut down Cirus reactor permanently in 2010. India has stockpiles which could make 250 atomic bombs. India has enough uranium to fuel nuclear plants to produce 10000 MW energy. Mr. Manmohan Singh, India's Prime Minister has announced that he would like to see the nuclear power sector to generate 40000 MW within a decade.
Nuclearisation of India's energy is nuclearisation of India's military options. The separation plan is in effect recognition of this reality.
Nuclear power is being offered as "clean energy", because it does not generate CO2 emission. The pollution due to nuclear waste is being ignored, and the fact that nuclear power has the potential to generate nuclear war is also being conveniently ignored. The US India Agreement is in effect suggesting that a nuclear winter is better than global warming. However, for sustainable energy, we need alternatives to both, and these will come from renewable energy.
Towards genuine sustainability
To achieve genuine sustainability, energy systems need to be embedded in society and ecosystems. They can be considered sustainable socially if they do not enclose and usurp the ecological space of the poor and they lead to better energy equity.
They can be considered sustainable ecologically if they facilitate the shift to decentralised low impact economies, and do not introduce risks of atmospheric pollution or nuclear pollution.
These choices need to be made by people, and should not be driven by industry, which is driving centralised state systems, and is using the climate change crisis it has created to create new crisis of nuclear pollution, nuclear waste, nuclear wars or new crisis of destroying biodiversity to create industrial monoculture plantations for biofuels as substitute for fossil fuels.
Ecological democracy must be the context for sustainable energy choices."
http://openpolitics.ca/nuclear+India
The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal
| Authors: | Esther Pan Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer |
|---|
Updated: October 2, 2008
Introduction
The U.S. Congress on October 1, 2008, gave final approval to an agreement facilitating nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. The deal is seen as a watershed in U.S.-India relations and introduces a new aspect to international nonproliferation efforts. First introduced in the joint statement released by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18, 2005, the deal lifts a three-decade U.S. moratorium on nuclear trade with India. It provides U.S. assistance to India's civilian nuclear energy program, and expands U.S.-India cooperation in energy and satellite technology. But critics in the United States say the deal fundamentally reverses half a century of U.S. nonproliferation efforts, undermines attempts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, and potentially contributes to a nuclear arms race in Asia. "It's an unprecedented deal for India," says Charles D. Ferguson, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you look at the three countries outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)-Israel, India, and Pakistan-this stands to be a unique deal."
What are the terms of the deal?
The details of the deal include the following:
What kind of technology would India receive in return?
India would be eligible to buy U.S. dual-use nuclear technology, including materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, potentially creating the material for nuclear bombs. It would also receive imported fuel for its nuclear reactors.
What do proponents say about the deal?
Proponents of the agreement argue it will bring India closer to the United States at a time when the two countries are forging a strategic relationship to pursue common interests in fighting terrorism, spreading democracy, and preventing the domination of Asia by a single power. Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace-who was intimately involved in negotiating the civil nuclear agreement with India as senior adviser to the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs-said in congressional testimony in 2005 that the deal recognizes this growing relationship by engaging India, which has proven it is not a nuclear proliferation risk. Other experts say the deal lays out the requirements for India to be recognized as a responsible steward of nuclear power. "This is part of a process of making India a more durable and reliable nuclear partner," Schaffer says.
Other experts say the deal:
What are the objections to the agreement?
Critics call the terms of the agreement overly beneficial for India and lacking sufficient safeguards to prevent New Delhi from continuing to produce nuclear weapons. "We are going to be sending, or allowing others to send, fresh fuel to India-including yellowcake and lightly enriched uraniumt-that will free up Indian domestic sources of fuel to be solely dedicated to making many more bombs than they would otherwise have been able to make," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving awareness of proliferation issues. While India has pledged that any U.S. assistance to its civilian nuclear energy program will not benefit its nuclear weapons program, experts say India could use the imported nuclear fuel to feed its civilian energy program while diverting its own nuclear fuel to weapons production. New Delhi has done similar things in the past; India claimed it was using nuclear technology for civilian purposes right up until its first nuclear weapons test in 1974. A Congressional Research Service report (PDF) on the agreement states, "There are no measures in this global partnership to restrain India's nuclear weapons program."
Other objections raised by experts include:
Who needs to approve the agreement?
The final terms of the nuclear deal were approved by the following bodies before they could be implemented:
What effect will the U.S.-India deal have on the NPT?
It could gut the agreement, some experts say. Article I of the treaty says nations that possess nuclear weapons agree not to help states that do not possess weapons to acquire them. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, says without additional measures to ensure a real barrier exists between India's military and civilian nuclear programs, the agreement "could pose serious risks to the security of the United States" by potentially allowing Indian companies to proliferate banned nuclear technology around the world. In addition, it could lead other suppliers-including Russia and China-to bend the international rules so they can sell their own nuclear technology to other countries, some of them hostile to the United States. On the other hand, experts like Gahlaut argue the NPT was already failing in its mission to prevent proliferation. She says many countries-including North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Iraq-have cheated while being signatories of the NPT.
What role does China play in the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal?
It is a motivating factor in the deal, some experts say. China's rise in the region is prompting the United States to seek a strategic relationship with India. "The United States is trying to cement its relationship with the world's largest democracy in order to counterbalance China," CFR's Ferguson says. The Bush administration is "hoping that latching onto India as the rising star of Asia could help them handle China," Sokolski says.
Some experts say the growing economic relationship between China and India is so critical to New Delhi that its interests in China cannot be threatened or replaced by any agreement with the United States. Other experts worry U.S. nuclear aid to India could foster a dangerous nuclear rivalry between India and China. Though India has a strong interest in building economic relations with China, New Delhi is still wary of China's military rise in the region.
What effect will the deal have on U.S. and Indian relations with Pakistan?
Pakistan has not received a similar deal on nuclear energy from Washington. Some experts say this apparent U.S. favoritism toward India could increase the nuclear rivalry between the intensely competitive nations, and potentially raise tensions in the already dangerous region. "My impression is that [the Pakistanis] are worried this will feed the Indian nuclear weapons program and therefore weaken deterrence," Blackwill said. Other experts say the two countries, both admittedly now nuclear, could be forced to deal more cautiously with each other. Pakistan is already a proliferation risk: Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's illicit nuclear network, revealed in 2004, shocked the world with its brazen trade of nuclear technology. Some experts worry the U.S.-India deal could prompt Pakistan to go elsewhere, for instance to China, for similar terms.
What's the history of India's nuclear program?
In the 1950s, the United States helped India develop nuclear energy under the Atoms for Peace program. The United States built a nuclear reactor for India, provided nuclear fuel for a time, and allowed Indian scientists study at U.S. nuclear laboratories. In 1968, India refused to sign the NPT, claiming it was biased. In 1974, India tested its first nuclear bomb, showing it could develop nuclear weapons with technology transferred for peaceful purposes. As a result, the United States isolated India for twenty-five years, refusing nuclear cooperation and trying to convince other countries to do the same. But since 2000, the United States has moved to build a "strategic partnership" with India, increasing cooperation in fields including spaceflight, satellite technology, and missile defense.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Email this story
No comments:
Post a Comment