Nuclear Thread - 4

[Arun_S]

The owner is out and the store clerk is pocketing by selling away the store as long as he is on station.



Indeed "Gai Bhains Paani Main"

[url="http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/87570/"]After Kakodkar meets PM, Cab Secy steps in: Indian Express Feb 09, 2006[/url]

Sources said that at his meeting with Chaturvedi, [color="#0000FF"]Kakodkar explained his side of the story[/color], indicating that he went public with his views partly because he was under constant pressure to explain the kind of separation plan (of civilian and military nuclear reactors) that would be credible for the US.



Kakodkar, sources said, emphasised the need for a credible minimum nuclear deterrent, keeping in view the Asian security scenario. He also quantified the sort of deterrent India needs to maintain for the future, explaining that in less than a decade the country’s stockpile will begin to feel the impact of uranium’s half-life decay cycle.



The nature of separation, he’s learnt to have said, will have to take this into consideration to ensure that it does not negatively impact the credible minimum nuclear deterrent.



[color="#0000FF"]On the fast breeder reactor programme, Kakodkar again made it clear that India could not afford to put it on the civil list as it would not be in its strategic interests.[/color]



Highlighting the dual purposes of the FBR programme, Kakodkar, sources said, did agree that India needed the latest technology in this field and for that the Indo-US nuclear agreement was vital. In fact, both officials agreed that the quest should be to get better technology into India to power the atomic energy programme as a whole.

And here is [url="http://www.wmdinsights.com/I4/SA2_BreederReactors.htm"]PM Manmohan Singh's statement on the floor of Parliament[/url]:

On March 7, 2006, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh presented the details of India’s “Separation Plan.” Singh stated that 14 of India’s 22 conventional nuclear power plants, now operating or under construction, would be placed on the civilian, IAEA-inspected list. [color="#0000FF"]He then gave particular emphasis to the fact that India would keep its fast breeder reactors, now operating or under construction, off the civilian list.[/color] (Breeder reactors are reactors that can create more fissile material than they consume.) On this subject, Singh declared:



[color="#0000FF"]We have conveyed that India will not accept safeguards on the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor [now under construction] and the Fast Breeder Test Reactor [operating since 1985], both located at Kalpakkam. The Fast Breeder Program is at the R&D stage. This technology will take time to mature and reach an advanced stage of development. We do not wish to place any encumbrances on our Fast Breeder program, and this has been fully ensured in the Separation Plan. [/color][1]



During my Suo Motu Statements on this subject made on July 29, 2005, and on February 27, 2006, I had given a solemn assurance to this august House and through the Honorable members to the country, that the Separation Plan will not adversely affect our country’s national security. I am in a position to assure the Members that this is indeed the case. I might mention:



i) that the separation plan will not adversely affect our strategic program. There will be no capping of our strategic program, and the separation plan ensures adequacy of fissile material and other inputs to meet the current and future requirements of our strategic program, based on our assessment of the threat scenarios. No constraint has been placed on our right to construct new facilities for strategic purposes. The integrity of our Nuclear Doctrine and our ability to sustain a Minimum Credible Nuclear Deterrent is adequately protected.



ii) The Separation Plan does not come in the way of the integrity of our three stage nuclear program, including the future use of our thorium reserves. The autonomy of our Research and Development activities in the nuclear field will remain unaffected. The Fast Breeder Test Reactor and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor remain outside safeguards. We have agreed, however, that future civilian Thermal power reactors and civilian Fast Breeder Reactors would be placed under safeguards, but the determination of what is civilian is solely an Indian decision. [2]



Singh’s comments suggested that India’s national security in the nuclear arena has two dimensions: sustaining a minimum credible deterrent; and implementing India’s “three stage nuclear program,” aimed at exploiting the country’s vast thorium reserves for energy purposes.



In an interview given on February 7, 2006, to the Indian Express roughly a month prior to the signing of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement, Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and Secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), made clear that India’s breeder reactor program does, indeed, have close links to the country’s nuclear weapons program:



[color="#0000FF"] Express: So categorically the breeder will not go under safeguards?



Kakodkar: No way because it hurts our strategic interest. You follow, no? There’s no way.[/color]



Express: The strategic interest of security or strategic interest of energy security?



Kakodkar: Both. It is linked through the fuel cycle.



Express: So will placing the fast breeder reactor program on the civilian list and hence under safeguards hurt India’s efforts at maintaining in perpetuity the “minimum credible deterrent” while hurting its need for long-term energy security?



Kakodkar: Yes, there can be no doubts on that. Both, from the point of view of maintaining long-term energy security [color="#FF0000"][size="4"]and for maintaining the “minimum credible deterrent,” the Fast Breeder Program just cannot be put on the civilian list[/size].[/color] This would amount to getting shackled and India certainly cannot compromise one [type of security] for the other. [3]



India’s breeder reactors were reportedly a contentious issue during the negotiations with the United States over the agreement. Ultimately New Delhi prevailed on this matter. [4] The prominent role of India’s breeder reactors in the consideration of the separation of Indian civilian and military nuclear facilities raises the question of what specific contributions these reactors, long justified as important to the future of the Indian nuclear energy sector, might make to its military capabilities.

New Delhi prevailed on FBR but only to now gift victory back on a silver platter for asking.



NSA works for PMO, and he will not make policy announcement without echoing "His Master's Voice".



Sad day for India

[color="#FF0000"][/color]