Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:25:59 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Summary: Russia-India deal



To put into a capsule everything that I've written previously:

First, Wales Larrison claims that the sale of Russian cryogenic-fuelled
rocket technology to India goes against the MTCR.

(i) Despite a Feb. 1991 joint Soviet-American communique with the Soviets
voicing concern with missile technology proliferation, the Soviets are not
party to the MTCR.

That was the position in the winter of 1991, as per:

[I]
Arms Control and Weapons Proliferation in the Middle East and South Asia
edited by Shelley Stahl and Geoffrey Kamp (St. Martin's Press NY,1992)

[II]
Orbis, Winter 1991
Can Missile Proliferation Be Reversed ?
by Kathleen Bailey.

and
[III]
Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 1991
The Politics of Proliferation
by Janne Nolan

(ii) As per the Orbis article, the MTCR is not a treaty or legal obligation,
and the decision to export would remain the sole and sovereign judgement of
the individual government.

Thus, even if the Soviet Union were a party to the MTCR, sanctions are
inappropriate under the cover of MTCR. (Of course, the US government has
the right to protect its interests.)

(iii) Finally, I think Wales Larrison knows absolutely nothing about the
MTCR, witness his statements on what the MTCR is, his claim that the Soviets
signed the treaty, his claim that fifty nations are party to it (he seems to
believe it is like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty) -- all of which are
fairly and squarely contradicted by [II] &  [III] above.([I] discusses MTCR
as though the reader already knows what it is.)

**********************************************************

Second, Larrison uses innuendo and casts aspersions on the Indian Space
Research Organization [ISRO]: that they spread false rumors about possible
deals with Arianespace and General Dynamics.

Well, I don't know about General Dynamics. The "Nature" reporter, who is
based in India, didn't mention it, nor did any of the other publications that
I've read ( The Economist, New Scientist, Flight International). It could
be Indian disinformation, but considering the other "information" that
Larrison has provided us from the phone-calls to his friends, I am inclined
to believe that it is American disinformation at this point in time.

Flight International reports that ISRO turned down a $230 million deal with
the French two years ago, and this is consistent with the statement in [II]
that talks about the attempted French deal with Brazil AND India. Moreover,
such deals are not automatically suspect under the MTCR, for each sale has
be decided case-by-case [II].

Larrison says that the ISRO claimed that the liquid fuel engine was for
their geosynchronous launch vehicle. In exactly the same spirit, I say
that Larrison claims to be a well-informed person.

****************************************************************************

About the handling of the deal: the Soviet suggested a joint team to overlook
the use of the engines, inspections etc. which were not acceptable to the US.
Flight International reports that the Indian Embassy in Washington issued a
statement that the US administration had been consulted before the deal was
negotiated and at that time had OKed it. The claim of "US commercial retali-
ation" supposedly made by ISRO is new to me, I haven't seen it in any of what
I've read. The Soviets did make a complaint about the US motives (see Flight
International, around May 15 ).

*****************************************************************************


Larrison says that India has nuclear weapons and has tested them.

India conducted one nuclear explosion, in 1974. According to the books in
the Carnegie Mellon Library, the device was too large to be transported in
a military aircraft and can hardly be called a weapon. The device was a
plutonium device, India doesn't have the technology to enrich uranium.
According to the books here (will real experts comment please ?), plutonium
bombs are tricky and designs need to be verified by tests (unlike uranium
bombs which one can be fairly sure of without testing), and that India at
most has a stock of bomb-grade plutonium and a library of possible designs
that can be put together for testing in six months or so. (Experts, please
comment.)

***************************************************************************
There are some statements that I cannot check, and for which I will not take
Larrison's word, such as the Flight International statement that liquid
hydrogen fuelled rockets have never been used on missiles.

This statement has a bearing on the possible use of the Russian engine on an
Indian weapon. I would like people who know, or who are in a position to check
to comment on this statement, and the following one (also from Flight Inter-
national).

Is it true that the last use of liquid oxygen on a missile was in the 60s
(the Chinese CSS-1) ?
*****************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************

Lastly, Larrison's statement about the ASLV/SLV being manufactured in a
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. factory, alongside the Agni. I think he is
spreading a bit of mis- information here -- it very much depends on what
he means by "manufacture", and which rocket sub-system he considers critical
to the launch vehicle.

You see, it just so happens that my father has spent most of his career
in the Indian civilian space effort, in the launch vehicle side of things,
and so I happen to know a little bit about ISRO. In any case, you don't
have to take my word, or this last part. The previous paragraphs are
strong enough indictment.

The joke is that I would have not investigated Larrison's statements any
further if he hadn't made the manufacturing statement.(I don't even read
this newsgroup, I stumbled across it while going for talk.politics.mideast!)
I resent strongly the attempt to smear ISRO and India in the manner that
Larrison did. And it took just a bit of library work to learn that Larrison
doesn't seem to have a clue as to what he is speaking about (unless all the
public domain stuff has been doctored !). I didn't have to rely on a single
Indian source, everything I've quoted has been western.

And, yes, I am taking all of this personally. I think I have good reason
to.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu