[Reader-list] An article to expose Indian state's bogus claims

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear all

I am proud to put on this forum an article which shows the bogus claims of
Indian state regarding the recently developed nuclear submarine 'Arihant',
as well as exposes the claims of how they will fight terrorism. I never knew
that increasing the defence budget through acquisitions of fighter aircrafts
will strengthen our war against terror. Probably we are going to be the
second US , bombing Waziristan or Balochistan.

Regards

Rakesh

Article:

  rediff.com <http://www.rediff.com/>
[image: Rediff][image: News] <http://www.rediff.com/news>

  &amp;amp;lt;a href="
http://ads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/innewsA.rediff.com/news-article.htm/1910085822/LB02/OasDefault/LB_LifeStyle_News_Spons02/LB_LifeStyle_News_Spons0101.html/63626337643538333436636562366430?_RM_REDIR_=http://www.lifestylestores.com/pages/july-offer-02.htm"
target="_new"&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;IMG SRC="
http://imads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/OasDefault/LB_LifeStyle_News_Spons02/LifestyleSale1b_728x90_29Jul09_bkupgif.gif"
WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 BORDER=0&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;gt;
<http://ads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/innewsA.rediff.com/news-article.htm/1910085822/LB02/OasDefault/LB_LifeStyle_News_Spons02/LB_LifeStyle_News_Spons0101.html/63626337643538333436636562366430?_RM_REDIR_=http://www.lifestylestores.com/pages/july-offer-02.htm>
 August 03, 2009
Sinking billions into nuclear weapons *Tags:
*India<http://search.rediff.com/dirsrch/default.asp?MT=India&search=site>,
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic
Research<http://search.rediff.com/dirsrch/default.asp?MT=Indira%20Gandhi%20Centre%20for%20Atomic%20Research&search=site>,
Captain B K Subba
Rao<http://search.rediff.com/dirsrch/default.asp?MT=Captain%20B%20K%20Subba%20Rao&search=site>,
Defence Research & Development
Organisation<http://search.rediff.com/dirsrch/default.asp?MT=Defence%20Research%20&%20Development%20Organisation&search=site>,
When Ms Gursharan
Kaur<http://search.rediff.com/dirsrch/default.asp?MT=When%20Ms%20Gursharan%20Kaur&search=site>
 Email
this
<http://invite.rediff.com/index.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.rediff.com%2Fcolumn%2F2009%2Faug%2F03%2Fsinking-billions-into-nuclear-weapons.htm&service=Rediff%20News&title=Sinking%20billions%20into%20nuclear%20weapons&tpath=&msgid=news&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fworld1.rediff.com%2Finvite%2Fothers%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.rediff.com%2Fcolumn%2F2009%2Faug%2F03%2Fsinking-billions-into-nuclear-weapons.htm%26title%3DSinking%20billions%20into%20nuclear%20weapons&contentid=7cf1b4c1f0ce64efcd293b4888a76e4c>
Save
to
My Page
<http://world1.rediff.com/bookmark/addbookmark?loggedin=true&title=Sinking%20billions%20into%20nuclear%20weapons&bookmarkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.rediff.com%2Fcolumn%2F2009%2Faug%2F03%2Fsinking-billions-into-nuclear-weapons.htm&tags=India,%20Indira%20Gandhi%20Centre%20for%20Atomic%20Research,%20Captain%20B%20K%20Subba%20Rao,%20Defence%20Research%20&%20Development%20Organisation,%20When%20Ms%20Gursharan%20Kaur,%20Dr%20Singh,%20DAE,%20Department%20of%20Atomic%20Energy,%20Navy,%20DRDO,%20Admiral%20Sureesh%20Mehta,%20Advanced%20Technology%20Vessel,%20Robert%20McNamara,%20Raja%20Ramanna,%20The%20Gorshkov,%20CAG&topic=column>
Ask

Users
<http://world1.rediff.com/qna?loggedin=true&article_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.rediff.com%2Fcolumn%2F2009%2Faug%2F03%2Fsinking-billions-into-nuclear-weapons.htm&article_title=Sinking%20billions%20into%20nuclear%20weapons>
Write
a
Comment
<http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/aug/03/sinking-billions-into-nuclear-weapons.htm#write>
 When Ms Gursharan Kaur, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [
Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=manmohan+singh>]
wife, broke a coconut on the hull of the INS Arihant amidst the
chanting
of Vedic verses, the Indian government took a step towards realising its
post-1998 quest for a grand nuclear weapons power status.

When the submarine is commissioned in a few years, India will have a
'second-strike capability': Even if its land-or air-based nuclear weapons
are destroyed/immobilised, India can still fire a nuclear-tipped missile at
the adversary from the ship, which can stay underwater for months at a time
and is therefore hard to detect.

The Arihant's launch has been called a great achievement of indigenous
technology, which gives 'real teeth' to nuclear deterrence and enhances
India's security without threatening others.

Dr Singh said: 'We do not have any aggressive designs, nor do we seek to
threaten anyone...' But the rationale of nuclear deterrence is based on
inducing terror through mass destruction weapons.

According to that doctrine, you prevent your enemy from nuking you by
threatening 'unacceptable damage' through an attack which instantly kills
hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians. Nuclear deterrence is a
deeply flawed doctrine and was described for half-a-century by India as
morally 'abhorrent' and strategically irrational.

However, what of the claim that the Arihant is an indigenous technological
feat, which shows mastery of 'complex' skills of compacting the reactor
which propels the submarine? In fact, the core of the Arihant technology
lies in the reactor's design and construction. And that technology came from
Russia [ Images <http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=russia> ].
Scores of Russian engineers were sent to India to aid the Department of
Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Defence Research & Development Organisation
(DRDO).

It was the Russians who supplied the vital designs, precision equipment
based on their VM-5 reactor, and the technology of miniaturising the
reactor.

At the launch, Dr Singh, Defence Minister A K Antony and Navy chief Admiral
Sureesh Mehta all appreciatively mentioned Russia's 'cooperation' -- a
euphemism for virtually building the reactor, fitting it with high-quality
components and providing precision welding inputs.

Present at the function were 143 Russian engineers, designers and
consultants who were crucial participants in the project. So much for the
'indigenous' technology claim.

In fact, the nuclear submarine project is a long story of failures on the
part of the DAE and DRDO, two of the worst performing departments of the
government, which have never completed a major project on schedule and
without huge cost overruns such as 200 or 500 percent.

The submarine project was sanctioned in 1970 by Indira Gandhi [
Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=indira+gandhi>].
Then DAE secretary Raja Ramanna's original design of 1975 proved
totally
unviable and had to be abandoned after about Rs 100 crores (or Rs 1 billion
in today's terms) was spent on it.

The DAE learnt no lessons from this disaster. Indeed, when a critic with a
reactor engineering doctorate, then navy Captain B K Subba Rao, voiced his
doubts about its design, he was victimised. He was arrested on his way
abroad for an academic conference and charged with espionage -- an
accusation he successfully disproved after long periods in jail.

The project, codenamed Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), was relaunched in
1975 under the DRDO, helped by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai [
Images <http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=mumbai> ] and the
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, and a large number of
consultants in the public and private sectors.

This soaked up as much as Rs 2,500 crores (Rs 25 billion) in research and
development (R&D) costs alone within two decades. But the project failed
because the concerned agencies couldn't fabricate high-quality components
and equipment.

In 1987-1988, India decided to try 'reverse engineering' by leasing from the
USSR a Charlie-class nuclear submarine, renamed Chakra, for three years.
This too yielded no worthwhile results in design or fabrication. The Soviet
Union collapsed in 1991 and the lease wasn't renewed.

Finally, in 1998, construction began on the submarine's hull. A basically
Russian-designed compact pressurised-water reactor was eventually fitted
into the hull after nine years.

Meanwhile, the cost meter kept ticking. India has so far spent a humongous
Rs 30,000 crores (Rs 300 billion) on the ATV, with virtually no side
benefits. This equals the entire budget of the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act last year, which generated 45 million person days of
employment. This makes nonsense of rational public-spending priorities.

But the government is planning to build 10 nuclear submarines. Work on two
has already started. India has also negotiated the lease of yet another
Russian submarine, a hunter-killer type, distinct from the Arihant, which is
a ballistic-missile launcher. The lease will cost another Rs 350 crores (Rs
3.5 billion) -- although the Navy brass says it's not keen on the hunter
submarine.

However, will the Arihant give India greater security via nuclear
deterrence? Deterrence assumes that nuclear adversaries don't attack each
other because they are fully aware of each other's nuclear doctrines, want
to avert 'unacceptable damage' from retaliation, and hence will behave
rationally at all times. Equally, it assumes there will be no strategic
misperceptions or miscalculations, and no accidents whatever.

These assumptions don't hold in reality. During the Cold War, there were
countless misperceptions and accidents with counter-strikes being averted at
the last minute. Weather rockets were confused for missiles. Vessels
carrying nuclear weapons collided with one another. The world was lucky that
nukes weren't used. There were 20,000 false alerts which could have led to
instant retaliation -- despite sophisticated command and control systems on
which $6 trillion were spent.

In the India-Pakistan case, no such sophisticated systems exist. There's a
rich history of miscalculation from 1965, 1990, 1999 and 2001-2002 -- when
war almost broke out. Indeed, Kargil [
Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=kargil>] did
happen -- a mid-sized military conflict with more than 40,000 troops.
This falsified the deterrence premise that nuclear powers don't fight
conventional wars.

Clearly, nuclear deterrence is too flawed and unstable a basis on which to
build security. Even old warhorses like Robert McNamara, who recently died,
came to that conclusion. India will go down that very slippery slope and
court disaster while continuing to deprive half its population of minimum
needs.

Yet there's no limit on how much we'll be asked to spend on the military in
the name of the Holy Cow of 'security'. And we're only at the first stage of
acquisition of a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and their delivery
vehicles, including missiles, aircraft and ships of various description,
along with the requisite command and control systems, and elaborate means to
protect so-called nuclear assets, which inevitably become a liability.

As this column has consistently argued since the Pokharan II blasts of 1998,
India's nuclear weapons pursuit is likely to lead to a runaway increase in
arms spending -- over and above rising expenditure on conventional weapons.
Since 1998, military spending has risen threefold in absolute terms, the
highest such increase since Independence.

As India builds up its nuclear arsenal, its adversaries will also try to
match it or retain their superiority.

The real danger is an uncontrolled arms race in which your adversaries, not
you, become the decision maker.

Throughout the Cold War, India rightly warned against the degenerative and
unstable nature of nuclear deterrence and a runaway arms race. It is
repeating that historic folly on a continental scale -- and possibly beyond,
given India's (and China's) ambitious plans to build a blue-water navy,
develop long-range inter-continental ballistic missiles and acquire 'Star
Wars'-style ballistic missile defence systems.

Today, there's virtually no internal or external restraint on military
spending -- witness the 34 per cent spurt in the defence budget in a single
year, which will probably go through Parliament without a debate. This
cannot be justified in the name of fighting terrorism.

You don't need amphibian ships, long-range fighter planes, aircraft carriers
and nuclear-capable missiles to combat terrorism. Yet, so low is the
accountability of the armed services that they can get away with wild budget
increases, which they often don't fully spend.

Nothing illustrates this better than the latest CAG report on the
acquisition of the Russian aircraft-carrier Admiral Gorshkov. This was first
offered in 1994 as a 'free gift' provided India pays for its refitting and
buys jetfighters to be put on it deck. A 'fixed price' contract was signed
for $974 million. The ship was to be delivered refurbished by August 2008.

Soon, Russia demanded an additional $1.2 billion and pushed the delivery
date to December 2012. But last year, Russia further raised the bill
dramatically to $2.9 billion. India is now negotiating hard, but it's
unlikely that the price tag will be under $2.5 billion. Besides, the ship
won't even have a 'close-in' weapons system until 2017.

According to the CAG report, the supreme, if ugly, irony is that the 'Navy
is acquiring a second-hand refitted carrier that has half the lifespan and
is 60 percent more expensive than a new one.'

A CAG official describes the Gorshkov deal as 'the biggest defence mess-up'
ever.

The Gorshkov case isn't unique. Other major arms deals, including the French
Scorpene submarine (price tag, Rs 18,701 crores/Rs 187.01 billion) and
British advanced jet-trainer (cost, Rs 8,120 crores/Rs 81.20 billion), are
also marked by allegations of undue favours, huge kickbacks, and dilution of
warranty and performance norms. This only underscores the need for greater
accountability on the defence services' part and for strict Parliamentary
oversight of military contracts.
Praful Bidwai

<http://world1.rediff.com/feedback>