The M R Srinivasan Chat
The former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission took the middle road, dealing with the nuclear issue as an established reality while continually suggesting that there were more pressing issues to address first, like over-population, poverty and unemployment.
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 7:55 IST)
EVERYONE: good evening, everyone. I am happy to be able to interact with you over the Internet. I am ready for your questions.
S HOMI (Fri May 29 1998 7:52 IST)
>Dr Srinivasanji: Is it true that Rajiv Gandhi turned down your request to conduct a nuclear test many times?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 7:57 IST)
S Homi: Rajiv Gandhi wanted us to have a high level of preparedness. But he was very keen on trying to use his influence to work towards nuclear disarmament. That is why he proposed the programme of phased elimination of nuclear weapons at the special sessions of the UN discussing disarmament in 1988.
Manish (Fri May 29 1998 7:54 IST)
Hi >Dr Srinivasan, sir, where do you now see India and Pakistan heading towards?? Reconciliation? or an arms race?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 7:59 IST)
Manish: I certainly hope that both India and Pakistan make all efforts to reach an understanding on various differences that have cropped up in their relationship. It's not at all desirable that the two countries embark on an arms race, conventional or nuclear. Both countries have to urgently attend to the problems of their people, namely, over population, poverty, unemployment and secure for them a better quality of life and better living conditions.
R RAMU (Fri May 29 1998 7:56 IST)
Dr Srinivasan: Hullo. here are some doubts about the Pakistani test. Do you believe the Pakistanis overstated their case?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:2 IST)
R RAMU: We really do not have any information released by the Pakistanis. The information on yields comes from different sources, namely Australia, India, European and American etc. What is clear is that they have only tested fission devices. According to our defence minister, one the devices had a yield of 10 kilotons. The others were smaller.
B K Iyengar (Fri May 29 1998 7:57 IST)
Dr Srinivasan: We are lay people, not eminent scientists like you. For our benefit, please let us know if our nuclear programme is superior to the Pakistani effort?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:5 IST)
B K Iyengar: We have a much more extensive nuclear programme. We have a number of nuclear power stations in operations, some under construction and some in the planning stages. We have extensive industrial capability, producing a wide variety of special materials and equipment required for the nuclear programme. We have a very wide base of research development and have established a wide network of use of radiation technology in industry, medicine and agriculture.
R Vasudevan (Fri May 29 1998 7:58 IST)
Dr Srinivasan: Now that Pakistan has given a tit-for-tat to India, do you expect this is the beginning of a nuclear arms race in South Asia.
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:8 IST)
R Vasudevan: There could be an arms race unless there is responsible leadership on both sides to contain public euphoria and to create an atmosphere that shies from jingoism. There is always the fear that on both sides that ultra-nationalistic views may be whipped up. Elected governments may succumb to the pressure of public opinion. An arms race is not good for India, Pakistan, or the region as a whole. We must do everything to contain this situation.
Iyengar (Fri May 29 1998 8:3 IST)
Sir: Why do you think previous governments were unwilling to conduct the tests while this government was willing to do so? Was it because the technology was only ready now?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:11 IST)
Iyengar: The technology has been available for a long time. The previous governments seem to have taken a view that the economic sanctions would hurt the country and slow down the growth of the economy. The present government seems to have taken a gamble. It's not clear if they have really analysed all the consequences carefully.
james (Fri May 29 1998 8:6 IST)
An important question: Was India's thermonuclear device a Hydrogen fusion bomb, or just a boosted fission device. Doubts have been expressed on whether India exploded a hydrogen bomb?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:12 IST)
James: The test on May 11 was certainly a hydrogen fusion device. It was not a boosted fission device.
Santosh (Fri May 29 1998 8:5 IST)
What's the use of spending so much money on making nuclear arms when we never intend to use it?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:16 IST)
Santosh: We must continue to work towards nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, it is the attitude of the five nuclear weapon powers that has forced India to consider making nuclear weapons. I would like to believe that the acquisition of nuclear capability demonstrated by the recent tests would continue to be a force for achieving nuclear disarmament in all parts of the world. It would be a mistake to embark on large scale manufacture of nuclear weapons and divert scarce resources for this purpose.
Princess (Fri May 29 1998 8:9 IST)
Dr Srinivasan: There seems to be some amount of self-congratulation in India about Pakistan's inability to match up to the Indian bomb. Do you agree? Do you believe that Islamabad is inferior to New Delhi in this regard?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:18 IST)
Princess: The Indian programme is certainly more extensive. It has a wider technology base and a larger access to special materials. But the Pakistanis seems to have done quite well with their rather more modest programme. There is no need to take a superior view on the Indian side.
guru (Fri May 29 1998 8:19 IST)
Dr. srinivasan> Do you think that we should push for star wars like deterrent now? It apparently takes an ICBM only 7 minutes to reach Delhi from Pakistan. Do we have an early warning system in place yet?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:20 IST)
Guru: Certainly not.
mo (Fri May 29 1998 8:7 IST)
BBC showed a terrorist training camp in POK with 1000 men waiting to cross. If they do what can India do about it , since it appears India does not have nuclear weapons on missiles ?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:21 IST)
mo: The question of using nuclear weapons to stop terrorist incursion does not arise. We must use conventional weapons and techniques for this purpose.
Soman (Fri May 29 1998 8:23 IST)
There is a feeling that India must conduct at least 20 more tests to gather the data to prove our technology. The five tests conducted last fortnight may give out signals of nuclear power, but are not an affirmation of technological competence. Please comment.
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:26 IST)
Soman: The five tests have given a lot of very useful information. We have very good computer codes and high performance computers. However, weapon designers may still like to test to arrive at improved designs. At the same time, we could also consider not conducting any test in the immediate future.
Kaxinath (Fri May 29 1998 8:22 IST)
Do we have any counter missile like the Patriot which was used to repel the Scud attacks?
Dinesh Chandra (Fri May 29 1998 8:22 IST)
Should India do tit-for-tat, i f Pakistan carries out second series of tests/explosions?
Do you think Pakistan has carried out only one instead of five?
I have read recently that Pakistan does not have triggering device, how they did it?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:28 IST)
Kaxinath: I am not so sure.
Dinesh: Its clear that they are having triggers for their current tests. They may have got them from China or made it themselves.
sanjeev (Fri May 29 1998 8:23 IST)
It is now very clear that Pakistan forced India to conduct the nuclear tests. There is an interesting analysis on NBC regarding Chinese help to Pakistan in developing a nuclear weapons. That report clearly proves that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and there was no need for them to carry out these tests.
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:30 IST)
Sanjeev: The Pakistani tests also served a propaganda angle. Hitherto it was only media speculation. Now, the test has been carried out. So, there is no more need for speculation.
sainarasimhan (Fri May 29 1998 8:24 IST)
Mr. Srinivasan: Do you think nuclear deterrence will actually lower our overall defence spending? I mean as a %age of GDP, it is cheaper to manufacture nuclear bombs and delivery systems as compared to deploying hundreds of tanks and personnel on the front lines. Does this theory ring true?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:32 IST)
sainarasimhan: Unfortunately, the expenditure on conventional weaponry does not really get affected by the possession of the nuclear weapons. The length of the borders to be patrolled and the state of tension along the borders determine the level of expenditure. Possession of nuclear weapon does not directly affect this situation.
Mo (Fri May 29 1998 8:27 IST)
The yield from Indian tests was very low - total 20 kt. Yet Indian scientists say they can make 220kt. Was that in order not to damage nearby villages? Where can India demonstrate a megatonne weapon?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:35 IST)
mo: Its not necessary to make megatonne weapons these days. With high precision in targeting one can achieve, the strategic objectives with smaller capacity weapons. The 200 kilotonne design referred to by Indian nuclear scientist is adequately large.
Soman (Fri May 29 1998 8:29 IST)
Dr Srinivasan: Thank you for your kind response. I have been studying your responses; it almost appears that you regret your role in making weapons? Am I correct?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:37 IST)
Soman: My own role has been largely in designing and building nuclear power stations. I believe that we must use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. I sincerely hope that we will continue to work for peaceful applications. There is much that needs to be done in this direction. Of course, we cannot neglect national security concerns but we must be able to contain the effort and expense that gets committed to the defence objectives.
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:38 IST)
EVERYONE; Last three questions.
sainarasimhan (Fri May 29 1998 8:30 IST)
Mr. Srinivasan: What kind of protection do we have around our nuclear establishments? e.g., near Trombay, there are hundreds of thousands of people that live and go about their daily lives. Is our defence around these nuclear structures strong enough so that we would be at least able to intercept the missiles?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:41 IST)
snarasimhan: We have adequate air defence and advance warning systems deployed near Trombay and near all our major nuclear installations. We also signed with Pakistan some years ago a convention on non-attack of each others nuclear installations.
Princess (Fri May 29 1998 8:40 IST)
>Dr Srinivasan: Despite our advances in science and technology, it took our scientists around 40 days to conduct the blasts after the prime minister gave them the go-ahead. In contrast, Pakistan could do so in just 17 days after our blasts. How do you explain this short time-gap for the Pakis? Were they, all along, just a screwdriver turn away from the bomb?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:43 IST)
Princess: It is clear that the Pakistanis had a state of a readiness all the time. In the Indian case, a greater amount of last minute assembly work appears to have been necessary.
TheSwedishKind (Fri May 29 1998 8:41 IST)
Do we need bomb? We need water and electricity. India can not provide living conditions to its citizens. For example, in IIT, Kanpur, the water did not reach the first floor and the great engineers and scientists there could not solve this problem. I have myself experienced this problem.
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:45 IST)
tSiss Kind: I agree that the scientists and technologists and managers must attend to the basic problems of providing safe drinking water, food clothing and shelter, health care and schooling. Diverting attention to nuclear weapons is not going to solve these basic problems. I hope that our political and social leadership realises, the importance of right priorities.
sainarasimhan (Fri May 29 1998 8:39 IST)
Mr. Srinivasan: Praful Bidwai, over the years, has been making allegations of mismanagement in the various reactors in India. There have also been allegations of radioactive water leakage from the coolant systems. Could you comment on this?
Dr M R Srinivasan (Fri May 29 1998 8:48 IST)
Sainarasimhan: Praful Bidwai has been a critic of the nuclear establishment. The regulatory board has been doing a good job. And the safety levels at our nuclear installations are good. We do have some old reactors. But they have been run well as a result of a very competent operators and maintainers. I have no hesitation in stating that the safety levels are up to international standards.
EVERYONE: Good bye and Good luck. See you some other time.
|
