Nuclear Deterrence

[Guest]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='24 December 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1293247720' post='109989']

By 'Indian strategic weapons arsenal" I mean but quite the opposite of low yield tactical weapons. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]



Maybe I should have asked: is RGPu used for any of the designs on which there is higher confidence than in Chidu's TN or its corrected version ? Any

wpns using RGPu as the only fissile material ?

[Arun_S]

Too many deep questions. Often silence is golden.

[Arun_S]

One of those rare new reports that states Indian reprocessing capacity.





[url="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/pm-to-dedicate-tarapur-nuke-reprocessing-unit-next-week/420362/"]PM to dedicate Tarapur nuke reprocessing unit next week[/url]

Sanjay Jog / Mumbai January 1, 2011, 0:27 IST

Amidst controversy over the 10,000 Mw Jaitapur nuclear power project in Maharashtra’s Ratnagiri district, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would formally dedicate a reprocessing unit at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre’s (Barc) Tarapur facility in Thane district.



The function is being organised by Barc during the PM’s visit to Mumbai slated for January 7. The plant, commissioned in October, would have an annual capacity of 100 tonnes to reprocess spent fuel.



The plant is for indigenous nuclear reactors and is not under any foreign safeguard agreement. The reprocessed spent fuel would be re-used as fuel and for medical and other purposes.



Currently, there are three reprocessing units, at Tarapur, Trombay (a suburb of this city) and Kalpakkam, near Chennai, with a total reprocessing capacity of 230 tonnes, none of which are under safeguard watch.



A Barc official told Business Standard, “As part of the commissioning process in October, the cold trial run of the plant has been started, with the use of inactive natural uranium-based fuel in place of spent fuel, which will follow later.”



The PM would also visit the Tarapur nuclear power plant. It has four units, with a combined capacity of 1,400 Mw.

From this one can extrapolate Indian WgPu (or even Super Wg stock), using information in this paper.



[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf"]Impact of Indo-US Agreement on Indian Strategic Weapon program[/url]



In power generation mode spent fuel has about 0.2 to 0.25% Pu (various isotopes), and in Wg mode its 0.07% WgPu. And 220 MWe plant generates 35 tonnes spent fuel/year, in low burn (Wg making) mode it will generate 210 tonnes. One can the math to figure out maximum possible stockpile in either mode. The reality is somewhere in between and with perhaps 10% of plant capacity and 40% of reprocessing capacity used for so called "other purposes" could be a good estimate.



So now capacity is ramped up from 230 to 330 tonnes. I.e. 760 kg/yr RgPu or 231 kg/Yr WgPu, or 60 Kg/yr Super grade maal.



Estimated amount of fissile material required per warhead type was reported in one of[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf"] my articles[/url] in Indian Defense Review.

[acharya]

[quote name='HareKrishna' date='01 December 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1291142475' post='109559']

If India will renounce to nuclear weapons and sign the NPT ,also Pakistan will renounce.

The territorial integrity of India will be assured by NATO+Russia and this will lead to a much safer world.

Nuclear weapons will be taken from the hands of religious people,the only ones that will conscious push the red button.

Only secular people and nations will have access to nukes,and secular fear death (unlike religious people) and never start a nuclear war that will end the human life on earth.

[/quote]



Sir which world do you live in.



China had nukes from 1964. India was restrained till 1998 waiting for them to reduce.

India cannot do anything now since China has proliferated to other countries already including Pakistan.



World has not put any pressure on China and hence the world has to take responsibility

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='acharya' date='08 January 2011 - 05:10 AM' timestamp='1294443137' post='110181']

Sir which world do you live in.



China had nukes from 1964. India was restrained till 1998 waiting for them to reduce.

India cannot do anything now since China has proliferated to other countries already including Pakistan.



World has not put any pressure on China and hence the world has to take responsibility

[/quote]

No sir ,i just presented the opinion of others.

My personal opinion is that India has insufficient number of pieces.The number must be higher then needed because some could be defective or be shot down.For this reason other nations have more pieces then they need.

[Arun_S]

For those among you who may be interested, Bharat Karnad has just started writing a fortnightly column called 'Security Wise', evey other Thursday, in the two Dailies '-- The Asian Age' and 'The Deccan Chronicle' accessible through their websites. The first of these on the CWC was published January 20.



Here is teh first article.











Published on Deccan Chronicle ([url="http://www.deccanchronicle.com/"]http://www.deccanchronicle.com[/url])

Nuclear morality

By By Bharat Karnad Jan 20 2011 India has an unbeatable record. There is no arms control bandwagon it has not jumped on to with reckless alacrity. Indian political leaders and diplomats are no lotus eaters or yokels easily conned into disarming the nation even as powerful countries bristle with newer, more lethal, armaments. But confront them with agreements promising deliverance from the hyped-up dangers of an armed world and they act as if their brains are “on hold”, unable to resist the chance supposedly to burnish India’s reputation as a “responsible” state even if this imperils national security.



Jawaharlal Nehru, who outlined the contours of Indian foreign policy, was a master at using morality to extract foreign policy benefits. A statesman in the classical mould, he was motivated by realpolitik — a seminal fact missed by most in the ruling Congress Party. When he had India in the vanguard of the campaign for “general and complete” disarmament in the 1950s, he did so knowing that precisely because this goal was beyond reach it would fetch India otherwise unobtainable dividends. And it did — shoving the superpowers, Soviet Russia and the United States, on the defensive, making an end-run round the 1947 Baruch Plan forwarded by Washington aimed at international control of all nuclear-related ores and natural resources everywhere, providing political cover for the dual-purpose Indian nuclear energy programme whose weapons thrust Nehru was secretly nursing to maturity, and benefiting from security as a free good offered by an America driven by ideology more than common sense. Together with its leadership of the goodwill-generating anti-colonialism and anti-racism movements in the United Nations, India enhanced its standing and ability to box above its weight class. These were no mean benefits at a time when India, a rag-tag nation, had little to bank on except its pretensions.



With less gifted leaders at the helm, however, the larger strategic calculations were lost sight of as policymaking steadily veered towards self-validating postures and a Pavlovian response of energetic me-tooism to every self-serving arms control initiative by the great powers.



It is another matter that, in each case, wisdom dawned late and on further consideration India retreated to less exposed but still vulnerable positions that the big powers exploited to push this country into a corner. It happened in the negotiations over the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and lately the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). For instance, the FMCT negotiations in the UN Committee on Disarmament are being stalled by Pakistan’s obstructive tactics. Instead of quietly encouraging this — as any delays afford India the time to augment its fissile material stockpile — the Manmohan Singh government has chosen to join the West in dumping on Islamabad. The inane Indian enthusiasm for arms control-qua-disarmament measures means that expectations are raised all round and pressures on Delhi to fall in line in any related negotiations increase to a point where failing to do so costs the country plenty.



The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) India signed with undue haste in 1992 and ratified four years later, reflects the sort of problems the Indian government creates for the country by not thinking through its policy choices. In 2009 India declared that its entire holding of chemical weapons had been destroyed, joining Albania and South Korea as the only three countries in the world verifiably to reach the zero-weapons level. Indeed, the National Authority for the Chemical Weapons Convention, working out of the Cabinet Secretariat, has so diligently monitored adherence to CWC provisions, it secured the ISO 9001 certification in 2008. But Delhi’s expectation that as a first and “fast mover” India would be rewarded with the top posts in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) headquartered at the Hague and thereby control the secretariat, the sensitive information flows, etc., was belied when India was out-manoeuvred and the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations in Geneva, Ahmet Uzumcu, installed by “consensus” as director-general, OPCW.



But the downside is more substantive because without ready chemical weapons at hand India may find itself in a real pickle. The Indian nuclear doctrine threatens nuclear retaliation, other than after a nuclear hit, in case of chemical and biological weapons attack. The trouble is that countering the use of chemical (or biological) weapons with an atom bomb goes against the fundamental logic of proportionate response and would be a difficult political decision to make in the face of concerted international opposition. Moreover, given how seriously the Indian government sticks as much by the spirit as the letter of arms control laws, it is reasonable to assume there is no cache of chemical weapons stashed away somewhere for just such contingencies.



What exists is a “defensive” capability permitted by CWC. But, however quickly these so-called defensive warfare resources and in situ weapons capability can be marshalled to produce chemical devices for offensive use, there will still be a lag time during which two things can happen. Emboldened by the Indian non-reaction to its initial provocation, the adversary state could follow up with a series of new attacks. Or, it could utilise this time to firm up international pressure even against a retributive Indian counter-attack. With the Indian government’s proven tendency to fold at the first hint of pressure, it is very likely that a chemical (or biological) weapons strike will, in fact, go unanswered. So much for CWC ensuring protection.



Despite repeatedly burning its fingers, India habitually accords undue importance to arms control agreements. Great powers know better. As Convention signatories the United States and Russia have taken their time to eliminate their chemical weapons inventories. Obliged to finish the job by 2012, they are still adrift of that goal.



- Bharat Karnad is professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

[Bharat_2009]

[quote name='Arun_S' date='07 January 2011 - 03:44 AM' timestamp='1294351601' post='110171']

One of those rare new reports that states Indian reprocessing capacity.





[url="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/pm-to-dedicate-tarapur-nuke-reprocessing-unit-next-week/420362/"]PM to dedicate Tarapur nuke reprocessing unit next week[/url]







From this one can extrapolate Indian WgPu (or even Super Wg stock), using information in this paper.



[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf"]Impact of Indo-US Agreement on Indian Strategic Weapon program[/url]



In power generation mode spent fuel has about 0.2 to 0.25% Pu (various isotopes), and in Wg mode its 0.07% WgPu. And 220 MWe plant generates 35 tonnes spent fuel/year, in low burn (Wg making) mode it will generate 210 tonnes. One can the math to figure out maximum possible stockpile in either mode. The reality is somewhere in between and with perhaps 10% of plant capacity and 40% of reprocessing capacity used for so called "other purposes" could be a good estimate.



So now capacity is ramped up from 230 to 330 tonnes. I.e. 760 kg/yr RgPu or 231 kg/Yr WgPu, or 60 Kg/yr Super grade maal.



Estimated amount of fissile material required per warhead type was reported in one of[url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf"] my articles[/url] in Indian Defense Review.

[/quote]



Good news !!



From Arun's Artilce "Way to a credible deterrent"



"Analysis of Indian fuel mining and actual consumption indicate that India has large quantity of lightly

irradiated spent fuel from which at least 2,400 Kg weapon grade plutonium can be reprocessed,

which will be enough for about 600 nukes (mix of FBF and TN types)"



By 2020 - India would have enough super grade plutonium for all its SLBMs.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/30/AR2011013004136.html"]New estimates put Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at more than 100[/url]

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal now totals more than 100 deployed weapons, a doubling of its stockpile over the past several years in one of the world's most unstable regions, according to estimates by nongovernment analysts.



The Pakistanis have significantly accelerated production of uranium and plutonium for bombs and developed new weapons to deliver them. After years of approximate weapons parity, experts said, Pakistan has now edged ahead of India, its nuclear-armed rival.



An escalation of the arms race in South Asia poses a dilemmafor the Obama administration, which has worked to improve its economic, political and defense ties with India while seeking to deepen its relationship with Pakistan as a crucial component of its Afghanistan war strategy.

....

[Arun_S]

[url="http://www.samachar.com/Dont-worry-Indias-deterrence-is-robust-Pokhran-II-scientist-lb5uRxbjjag.html?source=recommended_news"]Don't worry, India's deterrence is robust: Pokhran II scientist[/url]

2011-01-31 05:30:00





New Delhi, Jan 31 (IANS) Allaying apprehensions about reports of Pakistan doubling its nuclear arsenal, a veteran Indian scientist who played a key role in India's second nuclear test has said India need not be alarmed as its credible minimum deterrence was robust and it can produce more than 100 weapons.



'Our credible minimum deterrent is robust and strong. There is no cause for undue alarm,' K. Santhanam, a former scientist with the Defence Research and Development (DRDO) and the chief pointsman[color="#800080"] for the weaponisation programme for India's second nuclear test[/color], told IANS.



'Our plutonium-based nuclear programme is stronger and the plutonium produced can help make more than 100 weapons.



'The numbers are not the only thing that matter. Our nuclear programme is completely indigenous and stronger,' he said.



Santhanam was reacting to disclosures by a US daily that Pakistan has doubled its nuclear arsenal over the last several years and now has more than 100 deployed weapons.



The Pakistanis have significantly accelerated production of uranium and plutonium for bombs and developed new weapons to deliver them, the influential US daily, the Washington Post, reported Monday citing estimates by non-government analysts.

[Guest]

Santhanam was reacting to disclosures by a US daily that Pakistan has doubled its nuclear arsenal over the last several years and now has more than 100 deployed weapons.

Its question, when two or three will go missing !!!

[Arun_S]

Language & reporting quality is wanting in this new article.

It also has some useful technical information





[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/In-a-year-India-will-have-nuclear-triad-Navy-chief/articleshow/7030573.cms"]In a year, India will have nuclear triad: Navy chief[/url]

Rajat Pandit, TNN, Dec 3, 2010, 03.54am IST NEW DELHI: Only three countries, US, [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Russia"]Russia[/url] and China, can be said to have fully-operational nuclear weapon triads -- the capability to fire nuclear-tipped missiles from land, air and sea. [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/India"]India[/url] will [color="#800080"]gatecrash (<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />) [/color]into this highly-exclusive club by 2012.



[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Navy"]Navy[/url] chief Admiral Nirmal Verma, not given to making dramatic statements, said the triad will be complete once its crucial underwater leg, the country's first indigenous nuclear submarine aptly named [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=INS%20Arihant"]INS Arihant[/url] or the "destroyer of enemies", is commissioned towards late-2011 or early-2012.



The land and air legs are already in place with the [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Agni"]Agni[/url] family of road and rail-mobile ballistic missiles as well as fighter jets like Mirage-2000s and Sukhoi-30MKIs [color="#800080"]jury-rigged[/color] [color="#800080"] (<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />)[/color] to deliver nuclear weapons.



"When INS Arihant goes to sea, it will be on a deterrent patrol (read armed with nucelar-tipped missiles). The triad will then be in place... the aim is to make it as effective as possible," Admiral Verma said on Thursday, in the run-up to Navy Day on December 4.



This comes barely a day after [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Wikileaks"]Wikileaks[/url] revealed that American and European diplomats were greatly alarmed about Pakistan's feverish production of nuclear weapons. Estimates show [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Pakistan"]Pakistan[/url] already has around 70 to 90 warheads, higher than India's 60 to 80. China, of course, is way ahead with around 240 warheads.



While Pakistan is nowhere near getting a nuclear submarine, [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/China"]China[/url] has 10 of them in its 62-submarine fleet, with three of them being SSBNs (armed with long-range strategic missiles). India, in contrast, has just 15 conventional and ageing diesel-electric submarines.



Consequently, INS Arihant is crucial to India's nuclear deterrence doctrine, which revolves around a clear "no-first use" policy. A robust and survivable second-strike capability is hugely dependent on having nuclear-powered submarines, armed with SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), which can operate silently underwater for several months at a time.



Admiral Verma said INS Arihant, which was "launched" at Vizag in July 2009, would have potent SLBM capabilities to complete the triad. With INS Arihant's miniature [color="#a0522d"]83 mw [/color]pressurised light-water reactor slated to go "critical" within a month or two for sea-acceptance trials, Navy also seems quite confident about ongoing undersea tests of the [color="#a0522d"]700-km K-15 and 3,500-km K-4 SLBMs[/color].



The 6,000-tonne INS Arihant, which has four silos on its hump to carry [color="#a0522d"]12 K-15s or four extended range K-4s[/color], is to be followed by another two nuclear submarines under the secretive Rs 30,000 crore Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project.



Navy, on its part, wants to have three SSBNs and six SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in the years ahead. The force will also finally induct the K-152 Nerpa submarine, on a 10-year lease from Russia, towards April-May 2011 after several delays.



While the 12,000-tonne Nerpa will not come armed with long-range missiles due to international treaties, it will help train Indian sailors in the complex art of operating nuclear submarines. It will also be a lethal hunter of enemy submarines and warships, armed with torpedoes and 300-km Klub-S cruise missiles.

[Arun_S]

[quote name='Mudy' date='31 January 2011 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1296491636' post='110490']

Its question, when two or three will go missing !!!

[/quote]



2 to 3 are already missing, so it means soon enough 2 to 3 more will be missing. The real question is which are the 5 to 6 six cities/countries that will see mushroom from those missing paki nukes.

[ramana]

Arun-S, What is the meaning of the Nerpa "lease" and its weapon fit? Is it to give operational experience, serve as escort to Arihant, platform for Nirbhay?

[Arun_S]

1. Launch platform for Brahmos and Nirbhay
2. Escort Arihant's deterrence petrol
3. Charting out petrol areas for Arihant

[ramana]

An important interview with late KS garu:



A conversation with K Subrahmanyam (July 29, 2008)

Shivanand Kanavi: I want you start with an over view of the history of Indian nuclear weapons programme.

K Subrahmanyam: If you go back to Nehru’s writings in the 40s he recognized that it may be used (as a weapon) and then India also must have it. But at the same time he was a man of peace he wanted international peace so he was essentially he was for development of technology. But he did not overlook the fact that it had a strategic dimension. It comes out very clearly that at one point in time in 1954-55 Homi Bhabha after presiding over the Geneva conference on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, came back with great enthusiasm and proposed to Nehru that India should amend the constitution and say that it would never go nuclear. Nehru wrote back to Bhabha that he should look after physics and leave the international relations to Nehru. We will think about these things when we reach that stage. So at one point of time it was Bhabha who was a peacenik, but as they saw the two major powers accumulating more and more weapons and developing newer weapons and China going nuclear, I presume that Bhabha got converted to the view that India should also go nuclear. The selection of CANDU reactor which would produce plutonium and deputation of Sethna to France to get reprocessing technology would all show that at least in Bhabha’s mind strategic programme was very much there.

Perkovich says Nehru all the time had it in mind but those who think of Nehru as essentially a man of peace would dispute it but it is difficult to say unless personal papers of Nehru are made available. On the other hand in 1964 a few months before he died, while inaugurating the reprocessing plant he also said “come what may, we shall not make these evil things”. Once the Chinese conducted the test Bhabha was determined that India should go for it. Krishna Menon opposed Bhabha.

Once Shastri took over, he was not familiar with all these things and the first time Bhabha came to Delhi to meet him I was told that he was made to wait three days to get an appointment. He was used to an indulgent treatment by Nehru and so he was a little put off. Then Shastri appealed to UK for a nuclear umbrella against the Chinese threat. In the early 60s there was a discussion in the US whether India should be helped to become a nuclear power to neutralize China. This was even before ‘62 as they realized that China was close to building the bomb. It was supported by Dean Rusk in the State Dept but was opposed by Pentagon and McNamara. In ‘64 Bhabha was able to persuade Shastri to sanction SNEP (Subterranean Nuclear Explosion Project). In early ‘65 there was a AICC session in Durgapur and there was pressure from some Congress members K C Pant who was a young MP who said that India should go nuclear. Shastri did not want to commit himself so finally he said ‘not now’. He did not rule it out. To some extent it helped Bhabha in getting the SNEP project sanctioned and it was under SNEP that Ramanna , Chidambaram, P K Iyengar were brought into Trombay. Then Bhabha died in the accident in 1966. Sarabhai took over.

Sarabhai coming from a Gandhian background was opposed to it. He argued that we did not have enough plutonium at that time and even by ‘67 if we had enough for one test then what would you do after wards. Thus he alienated the Trombay people. The result was they boycotted Sarabhai and did not share any information with him. But Sarabhai was a gentleman and a very astute man and over a period of time he changed his mind. Not many people know about it but he himself told me the last time we met in Aug 1971 while having dinner at Ashoka Hotel five months before he died. Then the Trombay people made Purnima the Fast Pulsed Reactor using plutonium from Candu. In 1967 Indira Gandhi sent Sarabhai and L K Jha on a worldwide mission seeking nuclear security guarantee for India. They went to Russia, France, US and UK. They wanted a joint guarantee. They did not get it. In 1965 when the NPT resolution was moved we were one of the sponsors. We propounded the balancing principle viz. no more proliferation but weapon powers should negotiate give up their weapons. When the matter came up in Geneva in 1967 our delegate V C Trivedi found that something else was going on. They wanted to prevent everybody else from going nuclear but on the other hand they did not want to have any limits on what they were doing. He made powerful arguments against this NPT and they are still quoted today. To some extent the P-5 found that India was a thorn in their flesh in Geneva. In 1968 when the matter came up regarding whether we should accede to NPT (it was not debated much in the cabinet) Mrs Gandhi and her close advisors like G Parthasarathy, P N Haksar were all against it. At that time I was the director of IDSA (Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis) and conducted a crusade against the NPT that India should go nuclear. At that time there were a group of parliamentarians called Young Turks who were leftist Congressmen like Krishan Kant who were for India going nuclear. Because of that we became good friends and I used to give Krishan Kant questions to ask in the parliament.

Sarabhai knew that Kant was asking ‘my’ questions. So in 1971 during dinner he told me “Subbu you can call off your blood hound (Krishan Kant), <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> I am going to Mururoa Atoll to witness a French nuclear test”. The Gandhian of ‘67 had changed enough to go and witness the tests. So I said “Vikram, do I draw conclusions from this”. He said you do what you like.

However till he died there was no reconciliation between him and the Trombay group. Sarabhai anyway will be remembered as the founder of our space programme. Then according to the version given to me by Ramanna in 1972 October during the convocation of IIT Bombay, Mrs Gandhi summoned Sethna and Ramanna and gave the go ahead for testing. Then they started designing the test. Preliminary work had already gone on but Sarabhai had suspended it. But Purnima reactor had give them some ideas about the behavior of neutrons and plutonium etc. Between 1972 and 74 they worked on it. Ramanna has recorded that even in 1974 people like P N Dhar and Haksar got cold feet and it was Mrs Gandhi who told them to go ahead.



SK: Why were they hesitant, because of possible sanctions from US etc.?

KS: Yes. At that time US had become friendly to China and treated us as an ally of Soviet Union so they came down on us very severely.



SK: We already had a treaty with Soviet Union!

KS: Yes and also they could not forgive us for creating Bangladesh, a new country on the map which nobody had done after 1945! The sanctions started. That time we did not know that Pakistan had started its programme and was collecting money among the Islamic states.

When Janata government came in, Morarji Desai did not like nuclear explosion and did not like Ramanna (since he had led the test). He even denied that there was any nuclear test. He continued to hold that tonnes of explosives were buried and exploded!

SK: Is it because he thought Mrs Gandhi did it merely to over awe the domestic opposition and not for any strategic reasons?

KS: Yes. At that time US was trying to persuade us to adopt full scope safe guards—that is everything should come under safe guards. Mr Shankar who was Morarji Desai’s secy was in favour of it. So he told the Americans that we will examine it. So Americans were confident that India would accept it. Sethna was opposed to full scope safe guards. Morarji had said in the parliament that Americans are proposing it and there is nothing wrong in examining it. Actually I discovered through Sethna that the proposal was originated by Shankar and not Americans. So I got a copy of the note from the Americans to Sethna which called it “Mr Shankar’s proposal”. I got a photocopy of it and brought it to the Cabinet Secretary Nirmal Mukherjee that Morarji Desai can be cited for contempt of parliament since he had said in the parliament that it was an American proposal where as it was actually Shankar’s proposal. So the Cabinet Secy took it to Morarji.



SK: Was Shankar’s proposal for the cabinet?

KS: No. It was for Indians to discuss with Americans. Thus it was buried. Then Morarji went and made a speech in the UN General Assembly saying we will not conduct any more explosions. After he had read out that portion of his speech in the cabinet a message was sent through the then president Sanjiva Reddy to drop it from his speech. But inspite of that Morarji said it in the UN and he faced a lot of opposition when he came back. He tried to wriggle out saying I said an explosion and not test etc etc. At that time Ramanna was also taken out of BARC and put in as Scientific Advisor to Defence Ministry. Of course that did a lot of good to the Defence Ministry. But the Trombay team had been dismantled. Then in 1979 I produced a report saying Pakistan is going nuclear.



SK: How did you reach that conclusion?

KS: We got intelligence information. We knew about A Q Khan coming back and starting Uranium enrichment etc. I told the cabinet secretary to take it to the five-member Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs. He did it and there was a discussion. I was not present but Nirmal Mukherjee told me since I had to write the minutes, that the decision to resume the programme was taken but it was not unanimous. Three had voted for it and two had opposed it. He asked me to guess who were the two that had opposed the programme. I said one was Morarji and that was correct but I could not figure out who was the second. It was Atal Bihari Vajpayee! H M Patel, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram were for going ahead with our nuclear programme.

Then the Morarji govt fell and Charan Singh came. Sethna said he can manage the whole programme himself. In fact he was trying to fill up director’s post in BARC so that Ramanna will not be able to get back but that was prevented. But when Mrs Gandhi came back she posted Ramanna back to Barc and he held both the posts. Then the programme was restarted by 1983 we were again ready.



SK: Was it for weapon testing?

KS: Yes for weapons. The shafts were sunk in Pokharan but at the last moment the Americans found out through satellites and put pressure on us. Mrs Gandhi told them to stop it at the last minute. In fact it was those shafts of 1983 that were used for tests in 1998!

In 1984 we got involved in “six nation five continents” initiative.



SK: With Rajiv Gandhi..

KS: It started with Indira Gandhi and after her assassination it continued with Rajiv Gandhi. Essentially we ourselves were advocating CTBT.



SK: But it also involved some graduated disarmament along with ban on testing.

KS: Yes. We were in the fore front of it. When Rajiv took over, in 1985 Rajiv had a very intensive discussion with a group of us and I was also involved in it. He was at that time very much opposed to our going nuclear and he was very much in tune with the 6 nation initiative.



SK: Why was he opposed to it? Was it for economic reasons of sanctions etc.?

KS: No. He was new to politics and I think he was temperamentally a man of peaceful intent. He genuinely believed that if we can avoid it then we should avoid it. For one year I had arguments with him and at one point in time I told him that “PM sir, if you won’t take this decision, one day your defence expenditure will go through the roof”. So he asked the others present about it. Some agreed and others did not. Adm. Tahiliani was also present representing the Chiefs of Staff. He said we will give you a very serious quantified answer to this. PM said OK. The committee consisted of Abdul Kalam, R Chidambaram, Gen K Sunderji (Chmn) Adm Nayyar, Air Marshal Green. That group produced a report and for the first time it said a minimum credible deterrent of about 100 war heads can be developed in about 7 years and it will cost about Rs7000 crores. Only one copy of the report was prepared and delivered to Rajiv personally by Sunderji. We don’t know what happened to it afterwards.



SK: By that time were there no reports of Pakistani programme?

KS: Yes they were there but I was not in the government so I did not know about them. Thus he essentially stopped it. For some reason his relations with Raja Ramanna also deteriorated and he did not accept Ramanna’s recommendation of making P K Iyengar his successor. He selected M R Srinivasan, who had nothing to do with the weapons programme. So at that stage it was obvious that Rajiv was not interested in pursuing the weapons programme. He went to US he had a successful meeting with Reagan there was an agreement on science and technology but I do not think he was given any promise regarding civilian nuclear reactors. He was hoping for reactors from Russia and at that time Koodunkulam was under discussion.

However I am told that research went on and Rajiv did not stop it and then in 1988 he came out with his disarmament plan and put it before the UN and then to his horror he discovered that no one took any notice of it. He came back a disillusioned man and on the day of Air Force demo at Tilpat outside Delhi he said let us go ahead. Thus in ‘89 March or so he sanctioned the weapons programme.



SK: There is also a rumour about Operation Brass tacks and some message delivered by Pakistan during that exercise that they have the bomb etc..

KS: I will come to that. Even though the weapons programme was sanctioned only in 1989 the missile programme was sanctioned in 1984-85. In fact Indira Gandhi had sanctioned it and Kalam had been brought in specially from the space programme. In 1987 when the Operation Brass tacks took place, A Q Khan gave an interview to Kuldeep Nayyar and said, “you people be careful, we have got the bomb”. During the Kargil committee hearing Mr S K Singh who was the High Commissioner in Pakistan in the 80’s told me that in Jan ‘87, he was summoned by the Minister of State of Defence of Pakistan, who told him that if India takes any action then ‘we are in a position to inflict unacceptable damage’, which is a code to say we have the nuclear weapon. Rajiv knew all that but he still tried very hard and finally in ‘89 the same man sanctioned the weapons programme. By 1990 we had not assembled many weapons but Americans came to us and said that Pakistan is threatening to use nuclear weapons against India. This was in May 1990 but in Feb ‘90 Gen Yakub Khan came to India when Kashmir was on the boil and he told I K Gujral, “if you people use too much of force in Kashmir, there will be fire from the sky and rivers of blood will flow”. I K Gujral took him to V P Singh and he repeated the same thing. He would not look people in the eye but recite it as if he has been instructed to recite it. It was interpreted by India as a nuclear threat. In May US sent a mission led by Robert Gates, the present Defence Secretary to Pakistan and they told the Pakistanis ‘be careful do not try any adventure’ (according to US version) then they came to India. Here they did not say anything but to the rest of the world they said, “we diffused a nuclear crisis between India and Pakistan”.

However in a new book two American scientists have claimed that on 26th of May, 1990 actually the Chinese conducted a nuclear test for Pakistan. So they had come to dissuade Pakistan from doing it. Instead they put out the story about India-Pakistan. So Pakistan actually had a tested nuclear weapon by 1990 and not in 1998.



SK: That test was done in Lop Nor?

KS: Yes in Lop Nor. P V Narasimha Rao continued the programme. During NPT review conference in 1995, NPT was extended indefinitely and unconditionally. PV knew that we will be left out so he wanted to conduct a test. Preparations were all made but again the Americans discovered it and they put pressure to stop it. That is a fact.



SK: How did they find it?

KS: Through satellites. So PV could not conduct the test. When Vajpayee took over PV sent him a note saying ‘I could not do it, you do it’. Vajpayee acknowledged it after PV died. In 1998 however we were able to hide it. Both sides conducted the test.



SK: There is a claim that in 1998 we conducted a thermo-nuclear test as well.

KS: That is what R Chidambaram says. :mrgreen: The problem is 1998 tests were done in shafts that were sunk in 1983. They were capable of taking only 60-70 kilo tons. It is also right in Rajasthan which may be sparsely populated compared to rest of India but it is still populated. So there is no way you can conduct a megaton test. Chidambaram says he did at 45 kilo ton but there are lots of people who question it.



SK: Post 1998 how did this inclusion of India into the club take place? The French have claimed that they were responsible for it.

KS: Within two years even the Americans started being friendly to us. We realized that US was not hostile to us during the Kargil war, when Clinton did not side with Pakistan but sided with us. Then in 2000, Clinton had a very popular visit to India. To that extent the relationship with US started improving.

There was always a feeling among the major powers of the world, excepting China, that India was not an irresponsible power that it had already conducted a nuclear test in 1974 and had not rushed to build a nuclear arsenal. The Russians, French and even the Americans knew the China-Pakistan connection. How China had helped Pakistan develop nuclear weapons etc. The Indian compulsions were known.

The French president’s advisor did tell me that they took the initiative but that was after George Bush took office. Chirac rang him up. Russians have always been well disposed towards India. I have a feeling that during Bush—Vajpayee interaction they had already started developing the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership. We were asking the Americans to show progress in three things: nuclear, space and hitech. Those discussions were going on. The American administration at that time, with Colin Powell as Secretary of State, were not so favourably inclined to take such a major quantum jump. That came about in Bush’s second term, when Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State. They had in mind China’s dominance in Asia and the need to have some balance in Asia so when Man Mohan Singh met George W Bush in Oct 2004 during UNGA, they had a discussion but it is not quite clear whether Man Mohan Singh made any request regarding this or not. But definitely by 2005 March when Condi Rice came to India the Americans had made up their mind that they would help us in this respect. I would give a lot of credit for this to Bush and to a lesser extent to Condi Rice. These two really brought this about. Personally they were influenced by their idea of balance of power in Asia. They were not doing it because they liked us, but they were doing it for their own purposes. They could of course count on the help of France, Russia and Britain.



SK: Did Russia help us in the nuclear submarine? After all we have not designed even a conventional submarine so far.

KS: Yes they helped us with the design of compact nuclear reactor that was necessary. They are also giving us a hunter-killer nuclear sub on lease. Earlier they leased another one during Rajiv’s time. So there is no doubt there is Russian help. The PM has also publicly acknowledged it.

Our nuclear establishment is very small compared to other major powers. The Indian approach can be characterized as what we say in Tamil Nadu as that of Tirupati barber. :mrgreen: When people take their children for tonsure at Tirupati, the barber clips a few locks of one child and goes to the next one because now he has “booked” this child…Then he will take his own time to do all the things. So whether we design aircraft at HAL or this, it is the same. The only people who are a little different are the space department. Everybody else say yes to everything when they have one design team.



SK: Even the missile programme has not delivered what it promised…

KS: Yes in 1985 I asked Kalam, “with the number of people you have, will you be able to deliver this in this time frame?” He said yes, yes we will.



SK: There is one project which has never been talked about openly called “Surya”, which is an ICBM, what is its status?

KS: People have been mentioning it, but does India require an ICBM? India needs a missile which reaches Beijing and Tientsin. That is about 4000-5000 km missile. If you start designing an ICBM beyond that range, you will make the Americans wary. Are we likely to go to war with Americans? Our people talk about our submarines going to the Pacific to target China. But there is no need for it. Your submarines can be in the Bay of Bengal and with a missile of 4000-5000 km range you easily target Beijing and China.



SK: After the cold war, the Russian weapon supplies have become uncertain. Then there is objection to American end user arrangements etc. then should we focus on domestic defence production rather than imports?

KS: People should be realistic. Even the LCA has an American engine. In short the answer is: in the world’s arms market the demand is shrinking since the cold war ended. There is not going to be a war between major powers of the world. There may be wars between say US and Iraq or Afghanistan etc even they would be only after a short duration. Therefore the armaments demand has come down. There are only three centres of armament production: US, Russia and Europe. They can incur the R&D cost and production costs only if they have a market. The right thing would be to get into co-production arrangements with Russian companies etc. The Chinese do not have access to US market, we have an advantage. Chinese can have only Russian weapons. So why don’t we build up on this advantage. To build up defence R&D and production capacities like them, would take us many years and decades and resources. We have so many other demands for resources. So commentators should have balanced idea of these things.



SK: Now that Obama administration has many non-proliferationists what do you think India should do with NPT review conference and CTBT and FMCT coming up?

KS: NPT review conference coming up. We are not going to be invited since we are not members of NPT. You might get everybody into non-proliferation regime as El Baradei has been talking about but not in the treaty, otherwise it will unravel. Others will say you are rewarding India, Pakistan and Israel for not signing up. If Obama succeeds in signing CTBT then we will be under pressure to sign it.



SK: Was it wise for Vajpayee to say in the UN that if US, China etc sign it then India will not come in the way?

KS: He had to as he was under pressure. I have a question. Under what circumstances would we need to resume the tests? If there is such a grave deterioration in the international situation at some point in future then anyway before you others would have resumed testing.



SK: Or if your weapons become obsolete..

KS: There is not much chance of weapons becoming obsolete. The scenario of you alone being called upon to resume testing while the rest of the world does not is farfetched. I cannot visualize it.



SK: There is also computer simulation and sub-kilo ton tests to improve weapon design. Do we have the capacity for it?

KS: If we do not have it then we should develop it. You have to look at your man power and how many weapons you need. You should be prepared to sign up if finally US and China ratify it first. That is not going to be tomorrow or day after. With regard to FMCT we have said we will agree provided you have a verifiable agreement. That is going to take quite some time. Are we short of plutonium? Or is the constraint in reprocessing and fabrication? In which case don’t blame the FMCT for that.



SK: We have stockpile for another 80-100 weapons.

KS: Yes we do. Americans and Russians are planning to bring down theirs to 1500. Then what do we need? So we have to have clear ideas on that.



SK: What is your view of what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

KS: There is no way Americans can leave Afghanistan and Pakistan.



SK: Don’t you think the current Af-Pak policy is actually an exit policy?

KS: Yes but the main problem is they are trying to make Pakistanis fight the war in their own country. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



SK: Some people say US is outsourcing IT to India and war to Pakistan…

KS: Yes but Pakistanis are also trying to play all sorts of smart games. In the process what is going to happen to Pakistan and US-Pakistan relations is very difficult to predict. When Hillary Clinton was here she made a statement which was not picked up by media. She said in the interview to NDTV that 9/11 plot was hatched in Pakistan. And the plotters are still there. All that Obama has said is that we will go after them. Pakistanis may think, like many others that Americans will tire out and go away and then they can resume their games. What they do not understand is if Americans start tightening up saying if you fight there will be money and if you don’t fight then there will be no money then what will happen, we have to see. Their economy is in shambles. So the question is how Americans will manage that aspect. Secondly Pakistanis are finding that the chaps who they raised are turning against them. It is the nature of these Jihadi organizations that they have to be against somebody or the other. They will say that Pakistani state is on the side of the Americans. So Pakistanis will have to face that too. So they cannot play a double game for too long. 8)



SK: You think they have made the choice?

KS: They are trying not to make the choice. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> At present they have taken on the Pakistani Taliban and even in that there are serious questions regarding the seriousness of the fighting. They go on saying we have killed so many and still they have not got any leaders. They seem to have displaced a lot of civilians and how long can that continue? They have been very short sighted. Americans have already arranged an alternative supply line with the Russians and they are listening to the conversations of these people quietly, just as they did during 26/11. So they know what is going on. The question is who is going to outsmart whom.



SK: What do you think about what Man Mohan Singh has started?

KS: I have a feeling that you might have peace and stability with all other states: Bangaldesh and others and even with China but I doubt very much you will be able to do that with Pakistan. They are not a rational state. For them hatred of India is over powering.



SK: Don’t you think that at least in a section of people; youth, businessmen etc in Pakistan that there is feeling that peace will mean sharing prosperity on both sides etc.?

KS: That kind of middle class is not very large in Pakistan, neither has it been allowed to grow.



SK: Musharraf’s proposals looked actually reasonable.

KS: Musharraf’s proposals can be looked at even though his idea of joint management is vague, through which he wanted to tell his people that now he can control Indian Kashmir also etc. On the other hand we would say we will also have say on your side and between the two systems let us see where Kashmiris on both sides would go. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> But the main point is still even among the middle class the hatred of India is still very strong. So they are not ready to condemn LeT. They have subliminal sympathy.



SK: Is that because of Kashmir?

KS: No that is not because of Kashmir, in fact Kashmir is because of two-nation theory, jihadi mentality etc. I have also interacted with Pakistanis. Javed Jabbar who used to be a minister who was born in Madras, (his father was commissioner of police). He once told me, there will be no peace in South Asia till India breaks up into constituents. First of all they convinced themselves that Islam alone will unify and Hinduism cannot. It is a difficult and troubled state.



SK: If India has to become a major power it has to have economic strength and reasonable relations with its neighbours. Even China has not achieved reasonable relations with neighbours yet.

KS: What is our problem with the neighbours? So long as our relations with China and US were troubled, our neighbours took advantage of it. If you improve relations with China and US you will find that all your neighbours will adjust themselves.



SK: But is that possible? Chinese look at us as some sort of surrogates of US.

KS: It is possible. China is going to grow unless there are problems internally in China and the system changes. India will also grow. China will catch up with US in over all GDP even though they may not have per capita income. Americans want to keep up their pre-eminence in terms of military, economic and technological power. China is an aging country. US and India are not yet aging, at least for another 30 years.



SK: The issue however is America can continue its pre-eminence only if it aligns strongly with India. Only then it will have access to man power, innovation, technology etc.

KS: You are quite right. That is why US needs India and India needs US. What would be the Chinese reaction to this alliance? China and US are not going to fight with each other. It is a rivalry between the two for the top position in the world. I have seen many people say, why should we choose Americans why not Chinese after all we have a 5000 year old relationship etc etc. So I tell them, “Don’t worry about yourself but ask your son and grandson where they want to go to China or US and you will have the answer!”

Some say Harvard or Beijing. I would go even a step further. Where would you be able to build a Balaji temple or a Meenakshi temple in China, which you can in US. Democratic, English speaking and so on. Regarding China, it should be ‘if you are not friendly to us we will intensify our relationship with US. We are prepared to balance our relationship with both of you. But if you are not going to be civil to us we will intensify our collaboration with them’. So ultimately it has to be a three power game in the world. After all Russia, Japan, Europe are all aging. Even Chinese are now thinking of authorizing a second child. The kind of stupidities they have done are amazing! India does not have to worry about its rise.

Whether it is Obama or George Bush, US is not giving up ambition to build up an unrivalled military force in the world, which no single power or a combination of powers can challenge. They will always have that goal. Today 50% of the world’s military expenditure is incurred by the US and more than 50% of R&D expenditure of the world. On that I don’t think there will be any slack. I think Obama feels that dealing with all these nations, engaging them is a better strategy than confronting them. It is a sensible strategy. He is not doing it because US is overstretched. After all the reserve currency of the world is dollar. Rouble was never the reserve currency of the world!

The Americans rightly claim that they are also a soft power.



SK: Some say, perhaps the only other country that can rival US in soft power in terms of culture, movies, religions etc is India.

KS: In due course. You have the potential that is the reason why the two countries getting together is an event that is long overdue and is taking place now. It has nothing to do with Obama or anybody else, it is a natural process.



SK: So far Indian military has been quite defensive but it looks like it is modernizing now for force projection into Indian Ocean, Africa etc to defend Indian investments abroad.

KS: The Americans do not send their expeditionary force into all those countries where they own property or have business interests. They try to do it by influencing various groups in those countries. Therefore when we talk of our expansion etc we should also expand our ability to influence events in those countries. We should be able to befriend various parties, groups and interests in most of those countries. In future force projection by way of going and occupying a country is going to be less and less. Because you can defeat an army but the real problem is how do you occupy a country, as Iraq and Afghanistan show its futility. You could do it in 18th and 19th century, you could do it upto Hitler but not after that. Therefore people who talk about force projection don’t know what they are talking about. We are expanding our Navy for the security of shipping lanes, maritime terrorism, piracy etc it is not to threaten anybody.

But your economic power, your technological power commercial power those are things that make up real power. When the depression happened and America collapsed, it did not matter to China or Japan but today when American banks fail the Chinese are seriously affected. If the dollar goes down Chinese are worried. Not only that even if somebody catches flu in the US, the world has to be put on alert! That was not the case before.

There is no doubt that Americans are not only dominant but they think they are a power that can dictate terms to the rest of the world and that is objectionable. Of course that is not working. Increasingly countries are defying the Americans. We should not try to copy the “ugly American”. Already we have a reputation of doing that in our neighbourhood. That needs to be corrected. A day should come when Nepal. Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (I am still leaving out Pakistan) would be able to have a common market even something like European Union.



SK: In fact one country which seems to be neglected in that respect is Bangladesh. In fact it is very crucial for the development of North east, Burma and our whole Look East policy.

KS: That is right but they were very nasty to us. Only now we have a new government and we should also not forget that basically it is still East Pakistan. It will take time. Most importantly India should look after her people their food security, health and education then India will automatically become a major power.



SK: Thank you very much for giving me such a lot of time despite your health. You should write books. Why should we read Stephen Cohen or George Perkovich etc as authoritative accounts on Indian affairs?

KS: Unfortunately our government does not declassify archives like Americans do, moreover when these guys come here, all our politicians, bureaucrats etc talk to them. They get much greater access to people in power than us. Besides, they also have access to the American declassified documents. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



SK: Thanks for your valuable time and insights.

[ramana]

I know a person(engineer) who was assitant to Sarabhai in those critcal days. He says that US officials like Jerome Weisner and others used to come to meet Sarabhai when he was doing his job and advise developing atomic mines to blow up Tibetian passes etc as defensive nukes. He has minutes of those meetings.



So while Sarabhai had a overt Gandhian outlook he was alos looking itno all aspects of the decision. All I can say is due to GOI secrecy rules, the whole Indian nuclear question is like the blind man and the elephant. Every one claims he can describe the elephant based on his "truth".



Another old timer who knew Sarabahi said he was a number one patriot who took the irght decision.



However its true that BARC folks bark at Sarabhai and disparage him about his stint at DAE. Maybe he had to appear to be dovish after the hawkish Bhabha's exit from the role.



So reserve my opinion as we dont have the facts. Besides as guruji said doenst help doing what if exercises except mental self flaggelation.

[Guest]

Arunji,



1. What makes KS say that we need not be concerned abt TSP buildup and that our deterrence is robust and credible ? Saying that Pu produced is enough for >100 wpns is not a consolation unless "more" means "much much more"...



2. Also, the reports indicate TSP has deployed 100+ weapons and may soon overtake UK in number of weapons...are we going to have as large an arsenal ? isne there a worry that we may become infereior to TSP in this matter ?



3. Or, is it just that US has a better idea abt TSP's prog. than it has abt ours (more US wallahs crawling all over TSP)...



4. (related to 1) BK gave a different picture in his book..saying that what we have now is adequate for 200 odd weapons...is BK more correct than these amru estimates ?



5. Also, KS says not just numbers but quality matters as well...is he hinting at problems with the TN warhead having been resolved in a convincing fashion ?



6. If DRDO is going in for MIRVs, dosent it mean that we too, will embark on a buildup in the coming years if we are not already doing so ? No sense in having MIRvs if we have only 100 warheads or so...what do you say ?

[Bharat_2009]

"

SK: There is one project which has never been talked about openly called “Surya”, which is an ICBM, what is its status?



KS: People have been mentioning it, but does India require an ICBM? India needs a missile which reaches Beijing and Tientsin. That is about 4000-5000 km missile. If you start designing an ICBM beyond that range, you will make the Americans wary. Are we likely to go to war with Americans? Our people talk about our submarines going to the Pacific to target China. But there is no need for it. Your submarines can be in the Bay of Bengal and with a missile of 4000-5000 km range you easily target Beijing and China."



"SK: We have stockpile for another 80-100 weapons.

KS: Yes we do. Americans and Russians are planning to bring down theirs to 1500. Then what do we need? So we have to have clear ideas on that"





It is obvious that KS gave very clever replies to sensitive questions regarding strategic weapons program. KS replies sound very similar to replies by DRDO top guys regarding nuclear bombs, ICBMs and even about Chemical weapons (Well, United Nations representatives can come and check whereever they want, Chemical weapons are not going anywhere)



Regarding ICBMs,



From Arun's articles, we all know that



Even Agni II at lower payloads can go beyond 5000 km.



Forget about Agni II(AT), Agni III, Agni IV (True ICBM) and Agni V (3 stages modified Agni III)

[Bharat_2009]

'Pakistan has more nukes and fissile materials than India'



Even though it adds more confusion regarding true capabilities of India, reports like these are good for India. It definitely confuses so called non proliferation experts. Indian policy makers did a good job by constantly downplaying India's strategic weapons program through Indian media.





http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news...248104.cms

[Guest]

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-commen...-games-528



One thing I do not understand about BK's article:



Why does he rule out the 8 PHWRs as a source of WGPu when he himself referred to that being done in before 2008 ?He says economic cost.



My understanding is that the full capacity of the reactor cannot be used in low burn up mode because of speed of refuelling, etc. But the reactor itself may be run at lower power and part of this lower power can be used in this mode. If Arunji's 10% estimate is correct, using 10% of the power available in the 8 reactors in this mode will itself ensure we get more or less what we need- provided we sustain it and use all our reprocessing capacity to reprocess this only.



The economic cost is lower power generation, and these reactors in this mode wont be operating profitably from the financial point of view ( for NPCIL, say). Any other cost to this ? But economic cost should not be a deterrent here.



Should we take the message that transparency in the build-up is necessary for credibility rather than take everything in this article literally ?



Another thing I did not understand: BK still insists that even currently (with our puny deterrent), the response to a TSP first strike will obliterate TSP as a nation. How can a few tens of wpns cause TSP to stop functioning ?