9 ms·
India has an intricate history with nuclear technology. Both the Soviet Union and the US courted India in the 1950s, but in the end it was Canada who donated a
by niftich 8y ago
India has an intricate history with nuclear technology. Both the Soviet Union and the US courted India in the 1950s, but in the end it was Canada who donated a design for the first Indian reactor that came online in the 1960s. The US assisted with building another. Indian testing of nuclear weapons in the 1970s drew a sharp rebuke from several countries and the US and Canada withdrew their assistance. This also resulted in the creation of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export control regime to prevent nuclear proliferation. Cut off from exporters of nuclear technology, they slowly continued with domestic designs and new research. But their tremendous size and influence made them an attractive partner in geopolitical power plays.
In 1988 the Soviet Union and India announced they would build two new reactors, and the US fiercely protested at the time. The Soviet Union fell apart, and the Russians didn't resume the project for another 10 years, but construction eventually began in 2002. In 2006 the US and India reached an agreement to cooperate and the US lobbied for an exemption for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which was granted. It quickly became obvious that everyone wanted a slice of the Indian nuclear energy market.
Disregarding climate change for a moment, it's clear that the energy demand in India is increasing, and despite a rapid rise in the deployment of renewables, utility-scale generation is still 75% coal. This contributes greatly to pollution. Local coal lower quality than elsewhere, requiring more per unit of power. Nuclear will be an important complement to renewables as the energy mix slowly migrates off of coal. Unlike the US, which is awash in cheap natural gas that's readily stored and piped where needed, helping to even out the mismatch between solar generation and demand, India has very little natural gas, so it can't afford to pursue a strategy that deemphasizes nuclear energy.
- ergothus 8y agoMissing from that history was India developing nuclear weapons in the late 90s - I imagine that changed the politics immensely. Today they are an even more important and influential geopolitical ally, and the pollution argument you raise is as important as you say, but the concerns about a power supplying them with nuclear weapons ala the alleged Israel/US history is no longer a part of it (I assume). ...then again, I could be completely wrong in any of this. Comments welcome.
- femto 8y agoOne concern is nuclear material being diverted from their civilian programs to weapons programs. As a major suppler of uranium, this has been an issue in Australia for the last decade. India wants Australian uranium, but they aren't a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It seems that the $ won out though, as Australia is now shipping uranium to India. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/australia-quietly-makes-first-uranium-shipment-to-india/8722108 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/australia-quietly-mak...
- pushtheenvelope 8y agoit's worth understanding why India doesn't sign the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons. afaik india has a good record of preserving its nuclear secrets, and not doing "proliferation" to other countries.
- godelski 8y agoIt is also worth noting that there's a big difference in enrichment plants for power plants vs enrichment plants for weapons grade material (this was a big part of the Iran deal). That being said, it isn't like you can't make a weapon out from the power grade enrichment plants, but it is substantially harder. It is even harder if you're being watched (by say... the US or Russia).
- krtkush 8y agoPlus, India has a no first use policy. So it's not like India will threaten other countries with nuclear consequences in case of war like situations. This makes India's approach to nuclear weapons safer, IMO. Of course, such policies can be changed whenever India would want to.
- lmm 8y ago> The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons. Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise, and also to assist with civilian power efforts.
- writepub 8y agoMaybe citations would help, but language like "Canada donated a design" simply makes no sense geopolitically. No country "donates" nuclear tech
- niftich 8y ago[1] Canada blamed for India's 'peaceful' bomb [Radio broadcast]. (1974, May 20). In As It Happens. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1974-canada-blamed-for-indias-peaceful-bomb https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1974-canada-blamed-for-ind... [2] Perkovich, G. (2001). India's nuclear bomb: The impact on global proliferation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. <https://books.google.com/books?id=UDA9dUryS8EC> https://books.google.com/books?id=UDA9dUryS8EC> [3] Ramana, M V (2012). The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India. Penguin Books Limited. <https://books.google.com/books?id=5m8Atq0ncrwC> https://books.google.com/books?id=5m8Atq0ncrwC>
- writepub 8y agoQuoting your CBC citation: "The nuclear device was built using plutonium obtained from the 40-megawatt Cirus research reactor, a gift from Canada" Plutonium, the raw material (also) used for making bombs, was "donated". And apparently a working "research" reactor. A bomb design was certainly not donated, nor is it evident that Canada intended to transfer nuclear tech intellectual property, all the article claims was Canada's intent to sell working reactors and fuel, not designs, to India. FYI - Canada wouldn't have wanted India to have nuclear IP, for fear of cannibalising it's nuclear revenue stream of fuel and reactors to India!! Just the be clear, 31 countries have working nuclear power reactors, while only 7 have bombs. Unless you intend to undermine India's indigenous nuclear capabilities, all this hand waving about Canada "donating" designs doesn't hold up. After all, we're talking about the most lethal of weapons here, not candies that are casually "donated". Western intelligence agencies have a storied history of preventing nuclearization. India got nuclear despite the West, not because of
- anomaly_ 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pankajdoharey 8y agoIndia used the low enriched Uranium fuel reactor donated by Canada to breed plutonium and make nuclear bombs in 70's. Before that nobody thought it were possible to make nuclear weapons with low enriched uranium reactor to breed plutonium. Nonetheless India is a mature nuclear power, the world should really be worried about is pakistan as a nuclear state.
- richjdsmith 8y agoEvery single time I remember that Pakistan is a nuclear power, I am a bit worried. It's certainly in a top 5 position of countries I'd rather not have access to nuclear weapons.
- L_226 8y agoWell, in the recent skirmishes it seems that Pakistan was actually the more level headed of the two. India has been agitating about Kashmir due to local elections coming up, and BJP wants to gather the 'tough on Pakistan/national security' votes.
- dalbasal 8y agoThe difference is (a) government control over the army and (b) the role of paramilitaries... It just means that pakistan has more vectors for escalation. Populist flag thumping is a vestor in both countries.
- quantummkv 8y agoWell, that's after you conveniently take away the fact that Pakistan essentially started the latest skirmish. You really can't blame India for responding to the murder of their people on their soil, can you?