India-Japan nuclear talks inconclusive

[bananas]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/article822190.ece

NEW DELHI, October 10, 2010
India-Japan nuclear talks inconclusive

India and Japan ended the second round of talks on a civil nuclear agreement on Saturday with both sides stating their positions and deciding to hold another round in the future. The dates for the next round of talks would be fixed through diplomatic channels, said diplomatic sources.

While Japan wanted India's commitment not to conduct nuclear tests must be reflected in the proposed civil nuclear agreement, India maintained that its unilateral moratorium was stated unequivocally during the process that ended its isolation from global civil nuclear commerce, the sources said.

They said Japan was keen that India demonstrated some sort of commitment to signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which it has described as a building block to ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

India wants nuclear weapons more than they want nuclear energy.
Otherwise they would just sign the CTBT and NPT.

[madokie]

1. "India wants nuclear weapons more than they want nuclear energy."

I think that pretty much covers all of those saying all they want is nuclear energy, after all nuclear bombs are nuclear energy

[Vehl]

2. Nah, they Oppose NPT cos its hypocritical

India was one of the Initial countries that pushed for nuclear non proliferation (in the late 50s and 60s), but they refused to sign the NPT in the form it was formulated,for the sole reason that its a biased treaty.


the so called "big five" get to keep their nukes even when they are signatories while the other countries have to give them up. Its for this reason alone that India refused to sign this treaty (they were pretty vocal about the reason for their opposition)


It's a very valid question, why do those 5 countries get to keep their nukes while the rest should do not have the privilege, according to the treaty? This is yet another of those "old boys club" kinda deals (the same goes for the "veto" power in the US) that every country should oppose. But ironically almost every other country (except for India (and Pakistan which didn't sign cos it said India didn't sign) and Israel) signed this utterly biased treaty.


As for nuclear weapons, they already have a considerable number, and enough materiel to build at least a few hundred more if they so needed. They already have the special Waiver from the NSG (nuclear suppliers group)so they have the rights of an NPT signatory without having to sign it.

As for nuclear power, India does envision it as playing a major part in meeting the country's energy need in the future, and hopes to produce about 25-30% of its energy needs by 2025 from Nuclear reactors. The abundant thorium fuel reserves in India(the second largest in the world) is the main reason they have put so much research/effort into the Thorium fuel cycle, and have made some significant breakthroughs.

[DrGregory]

3. Nobody forces them to sign the NPT

It's a very valid question, why do those 5 countries get to keep their nukes while the rest should do not have the privilege, according to the treaty?
==========================================

The NPT Treaty doesn't have to be "fair"

Nobody FORCES a country to sign the NPT.

It's like a contract. You negotiate a contract.
The terms of the contract don't have to be "fair"
as seen by an outside party. All that is required
is that the parties to the contract agree to it.

In the case of the NPT, the P-5, the "nuclear haves"
were NOT going to give up their nuclear weapons. That
was a non-starter. The Cold War was on. The Soviet
Union would not give up nuclear weapons, and the USA,
UK, France, and China were not going to give up nukes
as long as the USSR had them.

However, it was desired that the size of the "nuclear
club" not increase. So we got the NPT.

If countries agreed to give up any claim on making
nuclear weapons; the P-5 would give them access to
nuclear data and information that was valuable for
making commercial nuclear power.

So the NPT non-nuclear weapons states got a deal;
the P-5 can have their weapons, and in return for
you giving up any claim on making your own; you
get valuable data and information that would have
cost you a lot otherwise.

So the non-nuclear weapons states of the NPT took
that deal. It was good as far as they saw. Many
never wanted to spend the money to make nuclear
weapons anyway - so they weren't giving up anything.

Sure - it is "asymmetric" because it defines two
classes of "nuclear haves" and "nuclear have nots"
and many claim that is not fair.

But treaties, like contracts, don't have to be "fair".

All that is required is that the signatories get what
they want at the time.

Dr. Greg

[Vehl]

4. Sure

I agree with what you have said in your post, that it was not a "perfect" deal and countries signed it only if they wanted to. However in the past few decades the MSM makes it seem as if those countries which did not sign the treaty are some kind of pariahs and that all responsible nations would/would have signed it.


This has been going on for a while now that people make comments about a country wanting nuclear weapons more than nuclear energy as being the sole reason to not sign the NPT without realizing that the NPT is far from a fair deal, and it is optional. It's that portrayal I'm against.After all some of the NPT signatories have far worse proliferation records than the non NPT signatories



One of the positive side effects that did come out of India not signing the NPT was that it was forced to develop the entire gamut of infrastructure/related technologies which are needed for both nuclear energy/weapons production by itself/on its soil. That is why it is considered that Nuclear sanctions on nations like India have hardly any impact cos they have all the capability in-house.


As for this recent India-Japan deal, I'm sure that eventually the deal would continue without India signing the NPT or the CTBT. Japan and India would not have even started these talks had Japan really believed that India would sign the NPT. This is the usual diplomatic dance nations have sometimes. Both countries have a lot to gain, especially When they consider each other an important ally in maintaining the power balance in East Asia(regarding China)

[bananas]

6. The NPT also requires negotiations towards nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapons states

The NPT states:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

This is what Global Zero is working on,
and it's why Obama was given the Nobel Prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Zero_%28campaign%29

[Vehl]

8. There is no time frame, so that clause is as good as dead

The NPT does not set a time frame for disarmament, thus it is of no use whatsoever...not to mention the vague wording.

Given the fact that none of the major five are willing to let go of nukes entirely, this treaty was dead from the onset, for any practical "disarmament" purposes.

sure, the Soviets and the Allies did drastically reduce the number of warheads after the cold war, but that was more due to financial concerns than due to any real disarmament commitments. Those tens of thousands of warheads and missiles were draining the coffers, thus they were trimmed.


as for Global Zero, sure its a laudable effort but it faces even worse problems than the NPT does.

"Goals include the initiation of United States-Russia bilateral negotiations for reductions to 1,000 total warheads each and commitments from the other key nuclear weapons countries to participate in multilateral negotiations for phased reductions of nuclear arsenals.

^^ and this would help disarmament how? Countries have to make the commitment to let go of Nukes altogether.
Furthermore, for all practical purposes, 1000 weapons are more than enough....especially with the modern highly accurate delivery systems. Thus countries can even reduce their nukes to 1000 and still be as effective as they were (mass destruction-wise) during the cold war era. Do you really believe that the big five will be willing to give up their nukes? I really don't think so. If not, why not modify the NPT and set a time frame for disarmament?


It has to be either Nukes or no Nukes...not some wishy washy vacillation.
Those who have signed the NPT have zero moral authority over those who have not signed...and in fact the signatories perpetuate a highly hypocritical policy which no self respecting democratic nation nor a person(who espouses egalitarian views) would ever want to follow.

India has always said that it will sign the NPT (or any equal treaty) which clearly sets a time frame for total disarmament, and does not give favored treatment for the big five.

[bananas]

9. See what Valerie Plame has to say about it

"At the Santa Fe New Mexico Opening of Countdown to Zero Wilson explains how she got involved with the film, how nuclear proliferation is an issue of national security, how nuclear weapons are not a deterrent against current threats and in fact contributes to that threat. She suggests that global nuclear disarmament may be difficult but is necessary as an eventual goal. The video was shot by John Witham for Nuclear Watch New Mexico, part of the CTZ Campaign Alliance."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x501447

[Vehl]

10. I just watched the Video

And I agree with what she has to say. I have always been a supporter of total nuclear disarmament, not the quasi old-boys club we have right now.


However, As I posted in my previous reply, This initiative has no enforcement power. At least the NPT has enforcement power over the signatory nations.


And yes...she talks about how it would be possible in the future, and how president Obama is committed to it.I do not believe any statements unless they are backed by a solid time-line/frame by which the goal has to be achieved. There has been enough talk, from the day nuclear weapons were invented, about the need to eliminate them. However have we seen any action towards that end? nothing to this day.


If they are serious enough, let them pass a UN resolution that Entirely bans nuclear weapons, or at least "requires" its signatories to eliminate/disarm all nuclear weapons by a given date. There should not be any ambiguous wording along the lines of the current NPT.


How many of the big five would sign up for such a resolution? If I'm a betting man, i would bet that none would!(at least if the "disarmament date" is within the next 10-20 years). If you have any evidence to contradict this assumption/hypothesis of mine, pls do provide it.


the Current NPT is highly discriminatory and should be consigned to the waste bin and a real NDT (nuclear disarmament treaty) should be drawn up if we were to see any real progress towards a non nuclear-weapon world. Anything shot of it is wishful thinking.

[DrGregory]

13. Obama is INCREASING funding for nuclear weapons...

And yes...she talks about how it would be possible in the future, and how president Obama is committed to it.I do not believe any statements unless they are backed by a solid time-line/frame by which the goal has to be achieved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobel Peace Prize winner President Obama is actually INCREASING
the nuclear weapons program - NOT decreasing it. From the
Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203884.html

QUOTE:
Obama budget seeks 13.4 percent increase for National Nuclear Security Administration

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget blueprint calls for an increase in funding of more than 13 percent for the agency that oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, a greater percentage increase than for any other government agency.
UNQUOTE

I guess when they were President George W. Bush's nuclear weapons,
it was easy to call for cuts in nuclear weapons.

However, now that they are President Obama's nuclear weapons;
evidently, he is singing a different tune.

I wouldn't hold my breath about arms reductions for the next
few years.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

14. next paragraph

The request could help reduce opposition to a new strategic arms control treaty with Russia. Republicans have argued that the Obama administration will jeopardize national security if it agrees to cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal without modernizing the country's remaining weapons."

[bananas]

7. Countries which did not sign the treaty are pariahs.

[Vehl]

11. Well I guess then they are Pariahs who are pro equal-rights than the signatories

One of these Pariah's, India has a "No first use Policy" regarding nuclear weapons, a policy that apart from China, the other 4 "can-haves" do not have.

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"


India voted against the UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the CTBT, which was adopted on 10 September 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."

So much for the NPT signatories claiming the moral high ground....more like insider-trading, I dare say

[kristopher]

5. That actual bone of contention is the liability exposure of nuclear providers in an accident

The memory of Bopal is still such a force among the population that legislators and administrators are forced to deal with in regards to nuclear.

India's new nuclear liability law made the would-be providers of nuclear energy liable for their product's consequences, and the nuclear industry players are looking for backdoor assurances that helpful "interpretations" of the law will be applied in the event a nuclear plant causes a Chernobyl scale disaster.

[Vehl]

12. I tend to agree

That probably is one of the reasons that the talks are delayed/inconclusive

imho the companies have to own up to their mistakes, or they can take their business elsewhere.