India Nuclear News & Discussion - 13 Aug 2007

Locked
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 670
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Roop »

ramana wrote:...one of the US interlocutors wanted the Indian economy to be linked so tightly to the US that there is a disinclination to test. Looks like 123 achieves that.
I strongly disagree with the last sentence. How exactly has 123 achieved a disinclination to test? There's a strong disinclination to test right now, without any pact/agreement/deal. There was a strong disinclination to test from 14 May 1998 onwards. How has 123 changed that?
rsingh wrote:MMS get the deal passed by Parliament ( I am sure he knows something which we do not know) and we are happy. Just then brilliant strategist kommandoo on our western border does Chingai 2 , to force our hand in testing ( now don't say we will not respond)
What do you mean "don't say"? People are free to say anything they want, and I'm saying exactly that. Under the circumstances you describe, we will not (we should not) respond. You are describing some hypothetical "paki tests for H&D" scenario and suggesting that India should respond "Hamari H&D to bhi koi kam nahin", and then go ahead and test for Indian H&D. Ridiculous! Leave the testing for H&D to the Pakis. Let them face the consequences.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Post by rsingh »

What do you mean "don't say"? People are free to say anything they want, and I'm saying exactly that. Under the circumstances you describe, we will not (we should not) respond. You are describing some hypothetical "paki tests for H&D" scenario and suggesting that India should respond "Hamari H&D to bhi koi kam nahin", and then go ahead and test for Indian H&D. Ridiculous! Leave the testing for H&D to the Pakis. Let them face the consequences.
It is not ridiculous at all. Minimum deterrent HAS TO BE CREDIBLE and world has to know about its credibility. FAS, JANE and other Unevens will be singing song about Bakistans proved credibility and India's unspecified " minimum deterent ". So it is not about H&D at all.........it is about real world where man is irrational and we have wars from time to time.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Post by putnanja »

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

rsingh, the agreement texts per MEA website is not misleading (or I would say, it could be misleading both ways: +ve as well as -ve), but its very complex in terms of indirect references, that leads to mis-interpretations.

may be the whole agreement started that way to be so.. why did our negotiators who is supposedly have done a good job, and having got a nod from chiefs like AK et al, should agree to the texts?

IMHO, this agreement has also got the UNkill by balls.. viz, hyde. They have now to interpret what they mean by saying, what they interpret the agreement to be.

In one way, having this healthy debate, like left totally disagreeing to this agreement, will make people to say what they understood and how they interpreted it, and how exactly was UNkill interpreting it.

I don't think so, we can get UNkill to agree overriding hyde act. If we are waiting for that to happen, then its not going to happen during UPAvasis term.

imho, we can agree to convert the moratorium into 123 form, but the texts really does n't say, India can't test. It may indirectly refer to hyde which may stop co-operation if we test.

And.. that is a deal.. same as the way you go to pawn shop and give your watch for some bucks.. its a deal.. who does it favor? always, the provider, and not the seeker.

This is a legal reality all over the world.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

..exactly, you might ask do we need this deal. its upto us to vote.. if, per Shourie's article clearly means, we are more than getting chewed at the musharraf than the Khans, which is bound to happen should we test, that a 35K MW under jeopardy vs. 300 Mw we got into similar issues.

sope, take your vote.. it could be a deal, not to sign., which is why the opposition is for it.

imho, i think we have to go for the deal giving up on testing. if we don't want to give up or can't put up with the moratorium, then might as well squash the deal, and join the left is shouting slogans. pull the govt down.

I am still thinking, there is a meaning to the voluntary moratorium that we are continuing thus far.

or,

we are now chewed and divided on this issue .. that might expose various strategic requirements to public. if that is the case, then the JPC is best solution to this problem.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

[quote="ramana"]
* STATEMENT: “Whatever is stated in the Hyde Act is not binding on us. How they (the US) deal with it is their problem.â€
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

Soon after the 123, BC cracked one of those exquisite straight drives dissecting the text with machine-like precision. Anything else by him since then?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

CRamS wrote:Soon after the 123, BC cracked one of those exquisite straight drives dissecting the text with machine-like precision. Anything else by him since then?
Events are happening according to the plan. let us see what we are going to get soon.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

In all this strategic talk, the civilian deal is lost!
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

"What the US is saying and what the Prime Minister has said are contradictory. I want to know whether there is something more in the agreement which is not written," senior CPI leader Gurudas Das Gupta told mediapersons in Parliament earlier on Thursday. "Something is being hidden from us, which is not in the interest of the country," he added.
"It is like a monkey dance we are doing, as never before has the US dictated us like this," said the agitated CPI leader.

http://tinyurl.com/9p28n
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

I'm pretty comfy with our N-testing scenario. RC and later ARun_S also laid out the factoid that desi capabilities in this area far exceed what I initially believed.

That we've mastered both the delicate tech of subcritical testing, and
simulating for the same and that we've validated our designs for the most 'useful' N-weapons of deterrence value today - in the 150-300kt range.

So, the testing issue, IMVHO, is a red-herring now. The fear is that we'll get too close to the khans perhaps? Or that our IP will be stolen? Or that unkil is using this as a foot in the door to extract vast concessions in other areas such as foreign policy, market access and the like?

I now really don't understand what the opposition fuss is all about. Hey, that's just me, I guess.
Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by Vick »

The fact that the Chinese Puppets in India (CPI) are spooked by the deal is a good sign for the pro-deal people.

I will maintain my principled stand against the commies and support everything they protest against and oppose anything they espouse.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Vick wrote:
I will maintain my principled stand against the commies and support everything they protest against and oppose anything they espouse.
:lol: Can't go wrong with that technique.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

Vick wrote:The fact that the Chinese Puppets in India (CPI) are spooked by the deal is a good sign for the pro-deal people.

I will maintain my principled stand against the commies and support everything they protest against and oppose anything they espouse.
Very well put. Its the lefties around the world that are objecting to this.

So Its definitely a good thing.

:D 8)
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

From Mr. Shourie's article, posted a few taps above (or below, depending):
This is not the first time that we have had a 123 Agreement with the US. We had one for Tarapur also. The US signed that Agreement with us in 1963. It was to be effective for 30 years, till 1993.
Does anyone have access to that 123 agreement we signed before with the US that Mr. Shourie refers to. It would be good to see how far we've come since (or not).

S
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

Thanks Calvin.

This clause is interesting (and it was in 63).
C. In the event the Parties do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement on the terms of the trilateral arrangement envisaged in this Article, paragraph A, either Party may, by notification, terminate this bilateral agreement. Before either Party takes steps to terminate, the Parties will carefully consider the economic effect of any such termination. Neither Party will invoke its termination rights until the other Party has been given sufficient advance notice to permit arrangements by the Government of India, if it is the other Party, for an alternative source of power and to permit adjustment by the Government of the United States of America, if it is the other Party of production schedules. The Government of the United States of America will not invoke its termination rights unless there has been widespread acceptance, by those nations with whom it has bilateral agreements, of the implementation of safeguards by the Agency or of provisions similar to those contained in this Agreement. In the event of termination by either Party, the Government of India shall, at the request of the Government of the United States of America, return to the Government of the United States of America all special nuclear material received pursuant to this Agreement and in its possession or in the possession of persons under its jurisdiction. The Government of the United States of America will compensate the Government of India for such returned material at the current schedule of prices then in effect domestically.
So how did the clauses play out in relation to the 63 deal after it went kaput?

S
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

"It is like a monkey dance we are doing, as never before has the US dictated us like this," said the agitated CPI leader.
Huh, what about the daily monkey dance that you guys are doing when the country is China.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Australia links uranium sale to India not testing
August 16, 2007 15:44 IST
A day after deciding to sell uranium to India, Australia has linked it to New Delhi giving a legal commitment to abandon nuclear testing in future.

Australian government's chief nuclear adviser Ziggy Switkowski said Thurday India will have to play by acceptable international rules if it wants uranium from his country.

Amid opposition criticism of the government's decision to sell uranium, the chairman of Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation said he expected a ban on nuclear testing by India to be part of any deal with Australia.

"To be allowed access in one case to American technology for new generation reactors and to our high quality uranium you've got to be prepared to accommodate the rules that govern reasonable international behaviour," Australian newspaper Herald Sun quoted him as saying.

"I think continuing weapons testing would compromise that kind of a situation," Switkowski said.

Asked if India doesn't agree, he said "I think at that stage we have to reverse out of the agreement in terms of supplying Australian uranium."

His comments came as Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made it clear that the decision to supply uranium to India cannot be implemented till the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement is fully in place.

Downer said Australia would "first of all" have to await the signing of a US-India pact to transfer civilian nuclear fuel and technology before Australian uranium went to India, The Australian newspaper reported today.

On Tuesday, the National Security Committee of Cabinet decided in principle to export uranium to India, conditional to agreed safeguards.
Russia, Australia to sign uranium deal in September
20:31 | 16/ 08/ 2007
MOSCOW, August 16 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and Australia intend to sign a bilateral agreement on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy during the Russian president's upcoming visit to the "green continent," the Australian ambassador to Moscow said Thursday.

Bob Tyson said under the agreement, Australian uranium will be exported to Russia to be used in Russian nuclear reactors.

Vladimir Putin will visit Australia to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney in early September.

The previous agreement, which was signed in 1990, permitted Australian uranium to be processed in Russia in the interest of third countries only.

Australia holds about one-half of the world's uranium reserves.
Ground work for GNEP ?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

samuel wrote:

So how did the clauses play out in relation to the 63 deal after it went kaput?

S
In 1974 US backed out of the agreement
asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Post by asprinzl »

Russia has the largest Uranium reserve in the world. If not for Indian "holier than thou attitude" for a long time in the past, I am sure India could have secured a very covert uranium purchase deal with the Soviets and later the Russians. I have been told that Leonid Breshnew was a very India friendly Soviet leader.

Even now, I don't understand why this begging from Australia when Russia still hold more uranium that Australia?
Avram
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

AS,

Wealth distribution follows vote distribution.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

Acharya wrote:
samuel wrote:

So how did the clauses play out in relation to the 63 deal after it went kaput?

S
In 1974 US backed out of the agreement
sorry for poorly worded question. When then US backed out what clauses, if any, were invoked?
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Indian lawmakers opposed to US-India nuclear deal disrupt Parliament
By AP
Friday August 17, 05:49 AM
....
But Indian media reported that the U.S. State Department Sean McCormack said Wednesday that any weapons test by New Delhi would kill the deal.

McCormack, however, said Thursday he had been misquoted, and that he was speaking only of provisions to terminate the deal, which did not specifically refer to a nuclear test.

"But we would say this: 'We don't test and we are not encouraging anyone else to test,'" he added.

But the furor set off by mis-reported comments, nonetheless, underscored the sensitivity among Indians about the country's right to push ahead with its weapons program and if needed test atomic bombs. Critics of the deal in India claim it poses a threat to the program.
....
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Gosh.. where in the hell did India say that it would use OZ Uranium for weapons. Now the spin doctoring by Johny is that it is the same conditions as Uranium for China, Russia and I think also France is what he says...

Uranium deal will bind India with same conditions of NPT

Melbourne, Aug. 17 (PTI): Australian Prime Minister John Howard today said the "strict safeguards" India has to follow to obtain uranium supplies from Sydney will have the same effect of that country signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

"I can assure your listeners that the net effect of our safeguards agreement will be the same," Howard told ABC radio today adding it will prevent India from using the fuel for developing nuclear weapons.

Howard last night reached an in-principle agreement with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh, despite India being one of the only four countries not to have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

"It's a different approach and India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But we believe that these arrangements will deliver effectively the same outcome," he said.

Howard said both countries would enter a bilateral safeguards agreement, and India would have to enter a similar agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"And the sort of conditions that are going to be imposed on India are the same as the conditions that are being imposed on countries like China and Russia and I think also France ... and we've been selling uranium to France for many years," he said.

"I spoke to the Indian prime minister last night and I went through all of the conditions, and I'm writing to him over the next few days to confirm that the agreement is subject to all of those conditions being met."

Australia is a major producer of uranium, with some of the world's largest known deposits in the southern part of the country.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Post by Singha »

let him market it domestically whatever way he wants, Massa cannot afford to lose face among his own flock.

we will get the uranium and use it for power generation as stated in
the sale agreement thats all.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

asprinzl wrote:Russia has the largest Uranium reserve in the world. If not for Indian "holier than thou attitude" for a long time in the past, I am sure India could have secured a very covert uranium purchase deal with the Soviets and later the Russians. I have been told that Leonid Breshnew was a very India friendly Soviet leader.

Even now, I don't understand why this begging from Australia when Russia still hold more uranium that Australia?
Avram
Can still be done via Kazakh or Ukraine - Non NSG members.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I was told by an investor type that the deal must go on for world stability. :shock:

the guy has no geo-political connections. onlee money.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Post by Victor »

We have obviously broadcast our intention to buy uranium from a lot of potential suppliers but I don't see where India has "begged" for Ozzie stuff. In fact, it seems like the other way around. There is total silence from the Indian side and it is the Ozmonkeys who have taken every opportunity to announce flip-flops like yes, they will and no, they won't, in general making complete asses of themselves and the DDM. One gets the feeling that they are at sea without a paddle on this one, unsure of whether to whine or cry. Must be the beer. They will get their wedgies soon enough to shut them up.

Thank God GoI has refused to allow any foreign players in Uranium mining. The ozzies had wanted to stick their fingers in Meghalaya. That would have been a disaster.
Raju

Post by Raju »

ramana wrote:I was told by an investor type that the deal must go on for world stability. :shock:

the guy has no geo-political connections. onlee money.
The implied message is that either the petro-based economy is coming to an end and alternatives are being sold worldwide under old system with only petro being substituted for other sources. Or India has threatened breakout from petro-nuke based energy if things do not work out to plan.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Post by hnair »

bala wrote:

"And the sort of conditions that are going to be imposed on India are the same as the conditions that are being imposed on countries like China and Russia and I think also France ... and we've been selling uranium to France for many years," he said.
:eek: NPT like kandeeshuns indeed!! So Howard-saar at least believes we are firmly amidst the newly formed P6. Gosh, this proves the admirably thick hide of the Ozies. First stomp out over '98 blasts, then slink in after a year mouthing whispered protests and now this candid admission of truth! Talk about triumph of realism over Yech-Undie.
pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Post by pradeepe »

Vick wrote:The fact that the Chinese Puppets in India (CPI) are spooked by the deal is a good sign for the pro-deal people.

I will maintain my principled stand against the commies and support everything they protest against and oppose anything they espouse.
Just caught up on all the fun. I have never seen the commies so riled up,
going into Monkey dances now. Actual pro-con debating put aside, this has
to be a good sign that agreement is on the right path. Faxes must be poring
in by the dozen.

It pains me to see the commies with known extra-territorial affiliations wield so much power.

Back to the deal, I fail to see why some folks are asking for specific clarifications on testing. Thats just shooting oneself in the foot. Nothing in
the deal mentions it, and should not. Following this, any party wanting to
participate in the post-deal commerce should be well advised to not make
any references to testing.
saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Post by saty »

Brilliant article; I love Shourie. He is GOOOOOD...

The article clearly brings out how

J18 == Lord British rule good for India Singh's statement in parilament
!=
123 deal.

Exposes the gap neatly.

Which is strongly needed so that all the open gaps in the 123 deal do not mean ruptures from which Indian blood flows out.

This "deal" as I said before only means we have to be even more awake and even more careful in the future.

The time of fighting while hiding from a bunker is gone. The deal makes it clear that we are fighting a infantry charge now.

Har Har Mahadev.

PS>> And hey I said this before Shourie did :wink:
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

>>This "deal" as I said before only means we have to be even more awake and even more careful in the future.

This is a correct observation IMHO. Thankfully, we are in a position now that we can be more careful.

As for the Aussie "conditions"... :twisted:

Avram,

As far as I know, India has not asked Australia for anything...

Their behaviour at the moment is a bit like a situation we have in Kerala called "pannu kannale"... This is when a bridegroom's parents go to check out a prospective bride/family's suitability... Its like the bride's family saying..."Sure, the bride will definitely get laid by the groom, but not before guaranteeing that he does not cheat later" before even the date for the visit is set... To some extent it is nothing more than a demo of how much they want to get the girl married off... :twisted:
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Post by SSridhar »

Speaker rejects voting demand by the Opposition
Opposition demand for re-negotiation of Indo-US nuclear deal and debate on it under a rule which entails voting was rejected in Lok Sabha by Speaker Somnath Chatterjee who made it clear that Parliament has "no competence" to decide on operationalisation of an agreement signed with a foreign country.

The Speaker said the government had the "sovereign" power and "unrestricted" right to enter into any treaty or agreement like the civil nuclear deal with foreign countries and it is well-established that "there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament".

"There has been no occasion where any treaty or agreement was ever discussed under Rule 184," he said while rejecting the notices of motion which seek the government "re-negotiate the 123 nuclear agreement"

The identical notices were moved by Leader of Opposition L K Advani, BJP member Santosh Gangwar and Samajwadi Party member Ram Gopal Yadav.

By asking the government to re-negotiate the pact, the motion "in effect seeks to disapprove the agreement entered into and to require the government not to give effect to the agreement in its present form and contents, which the House has no competence to do," the Speaker said.

He said "it will clearly amount to the House rejecting the agreement in its present form."

According to the Constitution, in the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament, "the right of the central government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries in its sovereign power, is unrestricted and any such treaty or agreement becomes effective without any intervention by Parliament," Chatterjee said.

The House will discuss the nuclear deal on Monday, the Speaker said, while noting that he had admitted motions for discussion under Rule 193, which does not entail voting, moved by CPI leader Gurudas Dasgupta, CPI member Rupchand Pal, Samajwadi Party's Ramjilal Suman and three other members.

This will be subject to availability of the Prime Minister, he said.

There are instances where such agreements were discussed by the Lok Sabha, Chatterjee pointed out but added that "there has been no occasion where any treaty or agreement was ever discussed under Rule 184."

"It is also well-established that there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament of any treaty or agreement for its operation or enforcement," the Speaker said.

"Parliament can only discuss any treaty or agreement entered into by the government, without affecting its finality or enforceability," Chatterjee said.

He said allowing the motions would amount to disapproval of the agreement already entered into by the government, "which, in my opinion, is not within the competence of the House. What cannot be done directly, cannot be achieved indirectly."

The Speaker noted that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made a statement in the House on August 13 on the nuclear agreement and "the House has no doubt the right to discuss the same".
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

I now fully understand the significance of saying that the 123 deal has helped India lose its freedom and revert to its colonised past.

You see, after 1974, India, under sanctions, was free to test. But our patriotic leaders thought up all sorts of excuses not to test. The reason for not testing could be anything, but it could not be a 123 agreement.

Our patriots dithered and dallied as others conducted hundreds of tests until we inexplicably and uncharacteristically let off a little squeak in 1998. Suddenly all those years of spinelessness and indecisiveness were wiped off. For a total of about 3 milliseconds.

But then again we reverted to torpor. But we were bold. We had spine. We could test "any time". We were free. "Azad" "Swatantrata" was ours

But now this spineless PM and his foreign female advisor have sold India out. 123 stops us from testing! Having tested once in 1974 and once again 24 years later, we considered ourselves "free to test". (wah wah!). We were bold and free to test 27 years after independence and then again 24 years after that.

Now that freedom is gone. We will no longer conduct another test in 2022, which, as experience has shown must surely be the date for the next test.

And 123 is surely to blame

:(( :((
saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Post by saty »

Shiv; N^3 guys please stop trivializing all manners of concerns of folks by reducing it to the level of mockery; there IS a testing concern around 123

Before 123; we were stuck with few nuke plants which we were managing one way or the other thus the consequences of testing were already meager; this was true across the board in a variety of ways.

After 123; IFF we are stupid or careless (or bribe able or.....) we may end up with a picture of a large number of nuke plants all dependent on US++ for their life (also may be F18s etc etc)

Of course IFF we are smart we will use this opportunity to create a situation where our dependence on a single source is minimized and hedged with buffers etc.

Thus post 123 we MAY have a situation where testing (or any other geo political issue) leads to a severe exposure to sanctions; and creation of such conditions force our hand further. The balls once in 24 years may turn into balls once in 120 years or something.

Therefore the POTENTIAL for damage post 123 is greater.

However not agreeing to 123 for the same; is like saying don't run because if you do you may fall harder.

Not a philosophy I subscribe to.

However it will be terribly naive to mock and run down on all the folks who ascribe caution and point to loop holes (Arun Shourie; BC etc) just because; "hey we can run instead of walking".

The left of course is entirely another beast; I will not dignify those PoS by even referring to their position.

PS>> Note the above is different from the thoughts I posted earlier as to 123 != J18; I think the 123 deal was not handled well from a political perspective.

However even if 123 == J18 the thoughts I mention above of being careful would apply equally; in the case of J18 != 123 at least hopefully we will be less likely to be lulled into a false feeling of permanence of the new order and will keep our eye open for the dynamic geo-political world.

However it does remain to be seen whether 123 will be used as an opportunity to strengthen or weaken since both can be done; as unlike J18 123 is really quite silent on the immediate benefits.

I frankly will not trust the current Indian polity at all. The only two things that give me hope for the deal were the involvement of NDA in the inception of the deal and role of the babu's in taking it forward.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

I was wondering. Just how have you guys figured out that we would NEVER need to test again.

Just a few reports and the assumption that since we were SOOOO advanced in 1998 (even ahead of the US, some reports suggest), now we must be ahead of Atlantis technology as well.

Why don't you also make the assumption that with pakistan on the verge of breakup, we don't really need nukes. All we need is electricity, so that Raj Singh Bundela can study English under a bulb and look forward to the day when he can join a call centre and talk in a 'neutral' accent.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

abhischekcc wrote:I was wondering. Just how have you guys figured out that we would NEVER need to test again.

Just a few reports and the assumption that since we were SOOOO advanced in 1998 (even ahead of the US, some reports suggest), now we must be ahead of Atlantis technology as well.

Why don't you also make the assumption that with pakistan on the verge of breakup, we don't really need nukes. All we need is electricity, so that Raj Singh Bundela can study English under a bulb and look forward to the day when he can join a call centre and talk in a 'neutral' accent.
Well put. So the logical step to take is remove this unilateral moratorium business. Doesn't mean we have to test tomorrow but as of now, legally, its the only obstacle to testing. The extra-legal consequences of testing remain the same as of today, to testing as they did before 123.

As our economy grows, we'll have more to lose, so the 'cost of testing' as it were, rises too. Inevitable.

What 123 does is make the cost much more acute by causing potential disruption much higher - targetting our energy sector. But again, what was the guarantee the P5 wouldn't gangup and impose an oil embargo or something in case we tested again, eh? Esp, if as some claim, our testing==breakdown of the world's N-power order?

JMTs and IMVHos, of course.
Locked