Gobind Thukral

FOR long time scientists have been puzzled about some dark energy. Science had helped to understand the characteristics of matter, but only in a limited way. They have been also eager to know how this universe where we live was created and from where we came and where we will go. There were no definite answers. Philosophers, religious preachers and scientists debated this in their own fashion.

Now on September 10 in Geneva the scientists successfully switched on an enormous experiment to recreate the conditions for a few moments after the Big Bang. This machine is designed to smash particles together with cataclysmic force. Scientists hope it will shed light on fundamental questions in physics. The first beam completed its first circuit of the underground tunnel and the second successfully circled the ring later. It has taken scientists drawn from 80 countries and at a total cost of Rs 3,300 crore to create a 27 kilometer long tunnel linked with 6000 giant computers and all other machines to experiment and understand the puzzles of the universe. India has sent 80 scientists and spent huge money to help this experiment. The most powerful physics experiment ever built, the Large Hadron Collider will re-create the conditions just after the Big Bang in an attempt to answer fundamental questions of science and the universe.
Scientists hope to see new particles in the debris of these collisions, revealing fundamental new insights into the nature of the cosmos.
They will be looking for new physics beyond the Standard Model – the framework devised in the 1970s to explain how sub-atomic particles interact.

The Standard Model comprises 16 particles – 12 matter particles and four force-carrier particles. The Standard Model has worked remarkably well so far. But it cannot explain the best known of the so-called four fundamental forces: gravity; and it describes only ordinary matter, which makes up but a small part of the total Universe.

All the matter that we can see in the Universe – planets, stars and galaxies – makes up a minuscule 4% of what is actually out there. The rest is dark energy (which accounts for 70% of the cosmos) and dark matter (26%). Dark energy cannot be observed directly, but it is responsible for speeding up the expansion of the Universe – a phenomenon that can be detected in astronomical observations. One of the most popular interpretations of the evidence that points to the existence of dark matter is that there are new, as yet undiscovered heavy particles, in the Universe that interact with normal matter only via the weak nuclear force and gravity.

The question being asked is what use is this experiment at such a huge cost and such big effort. There were also those who said that the world would come to an end by these explosions which are being conducted underground. Nothing this sort happened.

The quest to understand the smallest building blocks of nature and the forces that hold them together arguably began with the ancient Greeks, but it was only when we began to conduct experiments that we discovered the electron (1897), quantum mechanics (triggered by precision observations of the light emitted by elements when heated), X-rays, the atomic nucleus, radioactive decay... the list is practically endless.

Without these experimental discoveries, and the subsequent deepening of our understanding of the Universe, there would be no electronics, no silicon chips or transistors, no medical imaging technology, no nuclear power stations, no X-rays or chemotherapy treatments for cancer... again an almost endless list. It would teach us two things. First, it is virtually impossible to deepen our understanding of Nature without experiments. Second, understanding Nature has never been a bad idea - indeed without the pioneers of the past century, our civilisation would be immeasurably poorer. It would lay the foundation of a hundred new technologies, each considered essential to our quality of life.

For us Indians, perhaps understanding all this may be difficult lost as we are in superstitions, falsehoods of religious preachers and other doomsayers. One concerned reader of the dally Ajit called up to say that some television channels are telling that the world would come to end shortly because of these powerful explosions. Children and women in particular are a frightened lot; he said and wanted an article on the subject.

Remember way back in India, perhaps in 1955 or so, it was spread by the pundits that the time for the end of universe has come and they called it parlo or total doom. People spent the night in the fields and on the roads. A week before people started consuming whatever they had. Some even started free distributing of delicious food. Same way much later we had the spectacle as Gnasha drinking milk. I saw in Chandigarh and towns around how this trick was being performed to hoodwink the gullible devotees. There had been repeated attempts to prove to the people that the time for an end of the universe has come.

We have also heard that on particular day Guru Gobind Singh would ride his white horse on the sky and bless. I had seen large crowds in Fatehgarh Sahib and Anandpur Sahib waiting for the darshan of the Guru. This despite the fact Sikhism, a modern religion has no place for superstitions and miracles. We see jotishis, kala jadu wale and quacks all around in Punjab. They make huge money not only here but in many western countries. Newspapers are full of advertisements about some such babas, peers and who not. Pakistan is full of these fakes.

Indians are not alone. I had seen in way back in 1980 in London some people sitting with placards in their hands where it was written that on such a date the universe would end. Same was way some years back I saw some persons close the White House in Washington warning that of a catastrophe on a particular day. Same way some doomsayers were spreading lies that the world is about to end.

People are asking what this experiment would achieve for the humanity in the next 20-30 years. Can this technology change our everyday lives within our lifetimes? Or humanity has to wait a little more patiently before our lives are transformed with wormholes and quantum computing?

Look at one positive example from history. Quantum mechanics was developed to maturity as a theory during the 1920s and by 1947 we had the first transistor. It is extremely unlikely that transistors could have been developed without the quantum theory. Perhaps we are on the verge of a similar leap when we deepen our understanding of the sub-atomic world once again. There are unlimited possibilities indeed. Experiment is the basis of the scientific method, without which there would be no modern world as we know it.

BACK

 
India/US: Nuclear Waiver - Blow to Non-Proliferation

Praful Bidwai

THE special waiver granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) from its nuclear trade rules is being seen as a massive setback to the cause of global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

The NSG's waiver will allow India to resume nuclear commerce with the rest of the world with very few restrictions although India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has refused to accede to any other agreement for preventing the spread of, reducing the numbers of, or abolishing nuclear weapons.

The 45-nation conglomerate, a private arrangement set up after India's first nuclear weapons explosion in 1974, turned a full circle at its special meeting in Vienna, on the weekend, the second one in a fortnight, held at the behest of the United States.

The NSG was originally established "to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".

But it has now done the very opposite by agreeing to the exceptional waiver for India as part of New Delhi's controversial nuclear cooperation deal with the U.S. inked three years ago.

Washington hailed the waiver as "historic" and one that would boost nuclear non-proliferation, while New Delhi described the deal as an "important step" towards meeting the challenges of climate change and sustainable development.

Clearly though, the waiver only became possible because of the strong-arm methods used by the U.S. to bludgeon dissenting NSG members into agreeing to the exemption text it had drafted in consultation with India.

Contrary to the claim that the waiver, and more generally, the U.S.-India nuclear deal, will bring India into the global "non-proliferation mainstream" or promote nuclear restraint on India's part, it will allow India to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal and encourage a nuclear arms race in Asia, particularly in the volatile South Asian subcontinent, where Pakistan emerged as India's nuclear rival 10 years ago.

The special waiver has been roundly criticised by nuclear disarmament and peace groups throughout the world, including in India.

The waiver, says the U.S.-India Deal Working Group of the disarmament network ‘ABOLITION 2000’, comprising more than 2,000 peace groups worldwide, "creates a dangerous distinction between 'good' proliferators and 'bad' proliferators and sends out misleading signals to the international community..."

"The exemption" it adds, "will not bring India further into conformity with the non-proliferation behaviour expected of the member-states of the NPT."

Barring the exceptional situation in which India might conduct another nuclear test, the NSG imposes no significant conditions on nuclear trade with India. Even this condition is not stated up-front, and is mentioned in reference to a general statement by India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Sep. 5, in which he reiterated India's unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and its non-proliferation commitments.

But a voluntary moratorium can be lifted easily and unilaterally. In any case, it falls short of a legally binding commitment not to test.

India had insisted on a "clean and unconditional" waiver from the NSG, and has very nearly secured it, thanks to the indulgence of the U.S., which proposed the deal in the first place and lobbied hard and furiously for it.

With the waiver under its belt, India can proceed to import uranium fuel, of which it is running short, and a range of other nuclear materials, equipment and technologies for its civilian nuclear programme. But it can divert domestic uranium exclusively for weapons purposes.

"Under the U.S.-India nuclear deal, India signed an agreement to separate its military nuclear facilities from civilian installations and subject some of the latter to safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency," says Achin Vanaik, head of the department of political science at Delhi University, and a national coordination committee member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (India).

According to Vanaik, India will only put 14 of its 22 operating or planned civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards, which are meant to ensure that no nuclear material from them is diverted to military purposes. ''But it can use the remaining eight reactors to produce as much plutonium as it likes for its weapons programme."

According to a report prepared by independent scientists and experts for the International Panel on Fissile Materials two years ago, these eight reactors alone can yield fuel for as many as 40 Nagasaki-type bombs every year.

In addition, India can produce more bomb fuel from its dedicated military nuclear facilities and fast-breeder reactors, which it can maintain and expand.

India accepts no limits or restrictions on the size of its nuclear arsenal and has an ambitious nuclear doctrine under which it continues to stockpile fissile material for weapons use.

The NSG has all but put its imprimatur on India's nuclear activities which would allow it to expand its arsenal of mass-destruction weapons and thus set a negative example for the rest of the world, in particular, wannabe atomic states.

In the process, says Daryl F. Kimball of the Arms Control Association (U.S.), the NSG has undermined "efforts to contain Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programmes, and it will make it nearly impossible to win support for much-needed measures to strengthen the NPT" at its next review conference due in 2010.

The waiver may weaken and harm the NPT itself by aiding the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a country not recognised by it as a nuclear weapons-state, which it explicitly prohibits. Effectively, it expands the Nuclear Club to include a member which has refused to sign the treaty.

Within the NSG, there was a great deal of resistance to the waiver. An earlier meeting of the group, on Aug. 21-22, failed to produce a consensus -- necessary for any decision to go through.

The resistance was led by six "like-minded" countries --Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland -- which argued that India must accept three conditions in order to resume nuclear trade.

These included a periodic review of compliance with India's non-proliferation pledges, exclusion from trade of sensitive technologies such as uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing, and cessation of nuclear commerce in case India tests.

In the event, India only accepted the first condition and doggedly refused to go beyond reiterating its unilateral moratorium on testing.

However, on the second day of the NSG meeting, Foreign Minister Mukherjee made a general statement saying that India is opposed to nuclear proliferation, does not subscribe to an arms race, and will behave responsibly as a nuclear weapons-state.

"The statement was inane and dishonest because India initiated and has sustained a nuclear arms race in South Asia," says M.V. Ramana from the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development, Banagalore. "It is really a sad commentary on the state of debate at the NSG if such statements actually create what was described by the U.S. delegate as a 'positive momentum'..."

Eventually, the "positive result" in the form of the waiver was achieved after Mukherjee's statement effectively split the "like-minded" group and led to the desertion of the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland on the evening of Sep. 5.

Behind the change was crude pressure, blackmail and induced fear of "isolation" on account of antagonising the "emerging power" that is India. The topmost leaders of the U.S., India and their allies worked the telephone lines to mount this pressure.

Kimball said that ‘’it appears as if George Bush and his team engaged in some nasty threats, misinformation about positions, and intimidation, to wear down the core six members … and their allies. You have to assume the conversations among foreign ministers, presidents, and prime ministers didn't focus on the policy and non-proliferation issues, but raw politics".

"Another factor,’’ Kimball added, ‘’was the role of Germany, ostensibly the NSG chair. At this meeting, the Germans apparently sat on their thumbs and let the Americans run the show and keep asking for more consultations despite the remaining differences. A more competent and less biased chair would have provided more balance and would have adjourned the meeting Friday night when it was clear there was still disagreement on some fundamental issues..."

China briefly emerged as a supporter of the Group of Six, when it asked that the waiver decision not be rushed. But, say Indian media reports, a critically timed telephone call from Bush to Chinese president Hu Jintao did the trick and China quickly fell in line.

"This was a triumph of crass power politics," says Vanaik. "It is sad and profoundly disturbing that nobody resisted U.S. or Indian pressure and stood up for elementary principles in a group where even a single member could have blocked the waiver. India's 'victory' is founded on crude muscle power and cynicism, and negates rational, democratic decision-making based on a commitment to making the world a safer place."

[*IPS correspondent Praful Bidwai is a noted peace activist and co-founder of the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND), based in New Delhi.]

BACK

 
Afghanistan: US-NATO Airstrikes kill innocents

RAMPED-UP U.S. and NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan are causing an increased civilian death toll; raising concerns about the fallout from civilian deaths on the war effort against the Taliban insurgency. According to a major new report by Human Rights Watch , "Troops in Contact: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan", warned that the cost in civilian casualties caused by the increase in bombings goes well beyond the loss of human life and could put the nearly seven-year U.S.-NATO war effort at risk.

The Human Rights Watch said warned "The harm caused by airstrikes is not limited to the immediate civilian casualties," It cited the destruction of homes and property and the displacement of their civilian occupants caused by the bombing.

Citing HRW statistics, an editorial in Saturday's New York Times went further, asserting that civilian deaths caused by the stepped up bombing played into the hands of the Taliban and other insurgents: "America is fast losing the battle for hearts and minds, and unless the Pentagon comes up with a better strategy, the United States and its allies may well lose the war."

Fuelling a growing controversy here, both the Times and the report said that the increase in air attacks -- and the "collateral damage" they caused -- was due in part to the relative lack of NATO and U.S. troops on the ground whose fire tends to be considerably more discriminating in their impact than aerial attacks.

Both the Pentagon and leading Democrats have been arguing for months for deploying at least 10,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan but have been unable to overcome resistance by military commanders in Iraq who, backed by President George W. Bush, are reluctant to draw down troop levels there below the current 144,000. U.S. ground forces are so stretched globally that deploying additional forces to Afghanistan must await further withdrawals from Iraq.

The increased level of bombing has come as a result of a stepped-up insurgency led by anti-government Taliban fighters and associated groups. Fighting in Afghanistan has intensified dramatically over the past year. At least 540 civilians have been killed in the conflict so far this year, a sharp increase over last year's total. Casualties among the more than 60,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan have also risen sharply this year.

U.S. and NATO forces, according to the report, dropped 362 tonnes of munitions in Afghanistan during the first seven months of this year, including a flurry of bombings in June and July that, by itself, nearly equaled the total amount of bombs, by weight, dropped by the coalition forces on suspected enemy positions in all of 2006.

"[...] while attacks by the Taliban and other insurgent groups continue to account for the majority of civilian casualties," said the report, "civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007 (from 116 to 321)."

That increase prompted Afghan President Hamid Karzai to demand changes in targeting tactics, including using smaller munitions, delaying attacks where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house searches to the Afghan National Army.

Those changes were adopted by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with the result that, despite increased bombing during the first seven months of this year, fewer civilians (119) were killed compared to the same period in 2007.

But that figure does not include a controversial air strike Aug 22 on the village of Azizabad in western Afghanistan which, according to the Afghan government and a U.N. investigating team, killed 90 people, the vast majority of whom were women and children. The U.S. military, which carried out the attack, has insisted that 42 people were killed, 35 of them insurgents.

In some incidents, according to the report, U.S.-NATO air strikes may have violated the laws of war, particularly adherence to the principles of proportionality and the requirement that parties take all feasible precautions to prevent non-combatant casualties.

The report suggested that blame for civilian deaths can be focused fairly narrowly. While most foreign troops in Afghanistan operate under the banner of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a disproportionate number of civilian casualties resulted from air strikes called in by the nearly 20,000 U.S. troops who operate exclusively under U.S. command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Their rules of engagement, including when they can call for air support, are less strict than NATO's.

The most problematic engagements have come when insurgents take U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) by surprise, and the SOF call in air support. The military term, "troops in contact" (TIC), gave the HRW report its name.

In TIC situations, U.S. forces have often engaged insurgents who then retreat to nearby villages, taking up positions in homes and preventing their civilian residents from leaving.

Faced with a standoff, U.S. troops have called in rapid-response air support to bomb the homes from which they were taking hostile fire. That appears to have been what took place in Azizabad.

While condemning of Taliban "shielding" -- using civilian human shields or putting civilians at unnecessary risk so that when hurt, the story can be used as propaganda -- the report noted that this does not excuse U.S. forces from the laws of war and considerations of civilian populations.

The report outlined several incidents where questionable rapid-response bombings caused civilian deaths. In one of them, two anti-government fighters were seen entering a compound that was then hit with an airstrike that caused nine casualties.

The U.S. claimed to have killed the two insurgents, but a local Afghan authority denied the claim, and journalists at the scene found no evidence supporting it. Moreover, U.S. troops and local villagers said that U.S. forces had visited the home the day before and should have known that civilians were present.

"The available information about the attack -- in particular evidence suggesting that U.S. forces knew the house was inhabited by civilians and that only two lightly armed fighters may have been present -- raises serious concerns that the airstrikes violated the international humanitarian law prohibition against disproportionate attacks," said the report.

BACK