Article

2006-06-26 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john 2006-06-26 16:31|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Please be serious.

India is a member of the Anglosphere, alias "The Axis of Good," alias "the short list of countries we can trust with nukes." I don't mind India having the bomb because, like Great Britain or Japan or Israel, we can safely consider it a friendly country that won't use the bomb against us or against our interests. To claim, as this writer implicitly does, that India having the bomb is morally equivalent to North Korea having it is to reveal oneself as being afflicted with Murtha-like levels of personal idiocy.

Posted by Mike 2006-06-26 16:47|| 2006-06-26 16:47|| Front Page Top

#2 we can safely consider it a friendly country

I would not make so definitive a statement. While India having the bomb does not make me as uncomfortable as Iran or Korea, I'm not sure I'd rate it with the UK. It will be interesting to see what the long term implications of this decision are.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 17:18|| 2006-06-26 17:18|| Front Page Top

#3 The focus on capping the Indian arsenal is quite peculiar.

India has had nuclear weapons since 1974 - more than thirty years - and has built a very small arsenal, far smaller than it was capable of.

It has preferred to siphon off very small amounts of nuclear material from its civilian energy program rather than build dedicated plutonium production reactors (apart from two small reseach reactors that produce weapons grade plutonium)

It was only in 1983 that Rajiv Gandhi ordered actual weaponization - an aircraft deliverable bomb followed by a missile warhead.

Even today, 8 years after the 1998 second series of Indian tests, less than half of the modest Indian stockpile of weapons grade Plutonium (450 kg) has been separated and made into warhead pits.

It has not run its heavy water reactors in low burnup mode to produce weapons grade plutonium.
Each reactor can produce 150 kg of plutonium a year in this mode and India has 14 unsafeguarded heavy water reactors, in addition to 4 light water reactors, 2 more heavy water units, a prototype fast breeder, an experimental U233 reactor (the only one of its kind in the world), a test fast breeder that uses plutonium carbide fuel, plus its small research pool type NRX reactors.

The Indian fast breeder is being designed to generate power, not simply produce Plutonium and Uranium 233. If it were operated in such a mode, it could make tons of weapons grade material in its breeder blankets.

Forcing India to choose between operating the reactors in civilian or military mode will have one result - it will simply build more coal fired power plants (it is constructing ten 4000 MW coal units now) and use its limited Uranium to run the heavy water reactors in low burnup - making tons of weapons grade plutonium.

It can't use coal in warheads but its limited Uranium can be used for other purposes besides power production. And Indian coal is particarly foul - high ash content that will pollute the entire Indian ocean region and beyond.

India has agreed not to transfer missile or nuclear technology to any other state and its has an awful lot of tech that states may want - it mines uranium, produces yellowcake, fabricates its own fuel rods, enriches uranium to HEU level (it has centrifuge and laser enrichment facilities), builds its own heavy water reactors, reprocesses the fuel to produce plutonium, makes MOX fuel etc.

Not to mention the weapons specific technology - the ability to make small thermonuclear weapons - up to 300 KT, perfect for a missile warhead.

It has laser inenertial confinement facilities that are used for fusion research - quite usable for TN weapons design.

The Indian PSLV has a solid rocket first stage that is one of the largest in the world.. perfect for a long range heavy ICBM.
The PSLV and GSLV have delivered multiple satellites into different orbits, the basis for a MIRV capability. The Indian Agni missile has a manuevering warhead that is meant to evade Chinese ABM systems.

Under the deal, all this stays locked away from states desiring this sort of technology.

Posted by john 2006-06-26 17:26|| 2006-06-26 17:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Yes, that's a major reason for the agreement IMO.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-26 17:39|| 2006-06-26 17:39|| Front Page Top

#5 And does forcing India to look for Uranium elsewhere make sense?

The Canadian and Australian Uranium Ore deposits have about 20 % Uranium.
The Indian deposits have 0.1 % That is not a typo.
The waste tailings from the Canadian mines probably have far more Uranium in them than Indian mines. India would jump at the chance to mine the waste material from an Aussie mine.

Yet they manage to produce Uranium yellowcake from this. It must be quite an efficient operation.

Forcing them to turn to states not party to the NSG cartel - say Iran or North Korea that have large Uranium deposits makes no sense. Do we want the Indian mining technology to be used in Iran? What then would their yellowcake production be like?

And what would NoKO or Iran want in return? Help with reentry vehicle design perhaps?
I'm sure both would love to get their hands on an Agni RV - made of carbon-carbon-phenolic resin on a non-metallic carbon fibre aeroframe. That thing probably has a very low radar signature.
Plus it has high alitude thrusters to maneuver during reentry.
Plus GLONASS and GPS guidance, backed by C and S band terminal guidance - similar to the pershing -2 for low CEP (high accuracy).

Iran bought Kilo submarines from Russia and then discovered that the Russian batteries sucked in warm water conditions. Guess who they turned to for submarine batteries? An Indian company that makes batteries for the Indian Kilos.

Do we want the Iranians to get their hands on say, submarine launch technology for cruise and ballistic missiles (available from India)?

George Bush and Condi Rice have a well thought out strategy for bringing India into the American orbit.

Forcing them away, into the hands of rogues, isn't very smart. And for what? A desire to cap the Indian arsenal that is aimed at China?

Posted by john 2006-06-26 18:13|| 2006-06-26 18:13|| Front Page Top

#6 Hell, I'm for sending India D-5s if it comes down to brass tacks and ass kicking.

Posted by 6 2006-06-26 18:51|| 2006-06-26 18:51|| Front Page Top

#7 George Bush and Condi Rice have a well thought out strategy for bringing India into the American orbit.

I hope it still works in 2 or 3 decades. Somehow, I doubt India sees itself being in the American orbit.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 19:06|| 2006-06-26 19:06|| Front Page Top

#8 In 2 decades, the Indian economy will be firmly integrated with the American one.

Combine that with a security alliance aimed at combating Islamic terror and the threat from China and all Indian pretences at "non-alignment" will be dead and buried.

And it is China that will probably drive India into the American orbit.

A lot is written about India and China making up and forming an alliance. This will never happen.
Ths history of bad blood is too strong.

Today they started the eight round of talks on their border - the LAC - line of actual control from the last border war. It will probably be like the last seven rounds - going nowhere.

China seized large chunks of Indian territory and still holds onto it. It claims most of an entire Indian state as Chinese territory.

The Chinese transfer of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile systems to Pakistan, a country that lacks the ability to fabricate a high speed lathe, to say nothing of a tractor, is something that will never be forgiven - giving the ultimate weapons of mass destruction to the jihad dreaming enemies of India is an unpardonable affront.

Posted by john 2006-06-26 19:31|| 2006-06-26 19:31|| Front Page Top

#9 India doesn't have to be in our orbit. They can be part of the Anglosphere and help out where indicated.

John, thanks for the info. Rantburg U. lives!

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-06-26 21:38|| 2006-06-26 21:38|| Front Page Top

#10 The USA knows that the Commies-Maoists support India's various insurgent movements, including but not limited to Radical Islam. China's materiel' and advisory support of India's Communist, Socialist, and Radical Muslim movements is well-documented. IFF HISTORY IS ANY MEAUSURE, ONCE IN POWER BOTH THE INDIAN-SPECIFIC COMMIES-MAOISTS ANDOR RADICAL MUSLIMS WILL MOVE TO DESTROY ANY OPPOSITION. In addition, China is heavily involved in the GWADAR PORT DEV and other projects on both of India's flanks - the CCCC/CPC historically does not engage in any such activity unless it anticipates, i.e. planning to, eventually control the entire area or region, from origin to end.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-06-26 21:55|| 2006-06-26 21:55|| Front Page Top

18:14 Besoeker
00:20 JosephMendiola
23:59 Dar
23:57 JosephMendiola
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:34 grb
23:32 grb
23:30 grb
23:26 grb
23:19 grb
23:18 grb
23:14 grb
23:12 grb
23:09 grb
23:08 Seafarious
23:02 Sherry
22:58 Frank G
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:54 xbalanke
22:53 Scooter McGruder
22:44 tu3031
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:39 DMFD
22:38 bombay