Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 03 Nov 2005 02:47

Alok_N wrote:by the way, I am trying to locate "Countering Sokolski" by Ashtom Carter, a letter he wrote to Atomic Scientist ... google finds this:


Alok_N

Is there a print version? I will see if I can scan now that my scanner is working.

rajkhalsa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 09:55

Postby rajkhalsa » 03 Nov 2005 04:21

Rangudu wrote::!: :!: :!:

Starting at 3 PM ET, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal can be heard live using RealPlayer. The URL is:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen419.rm

For details on the hearing and witness list, please see:

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2005/hrg051102p.html


:!: :!: :!:


Hi Rangudu

Were you or anyone else by chance able to record it? I was doing so but my computer had crashed and the file became corrupted...

I was only about to listen in for an hour... would love to be able to hear the whole thing :)

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 03 Nov 2005 04:35

Where to upload it, again?

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Postby Div » 03 Nov 2005 06:35

Indo-US N-deal may be dead on arrival
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/03ndeal.htm

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 03 Nov 2005 08:43

Wow. It's been a very hectic couple of weeks for the July 18 agreement. Based on the hearings and other sources here are my tenative predictions for what's going to happen next:

1. India will first have to come out with a plan to separate its civil and military facilities and the list will probably be disliked at BRF. - Target Dec/Jan

2. US will sound out G-8 and NSG and get key players, minus China, line up behind the deal.

3. Bush visits India but nothing major is announced on the nuclear front except perhaps fuel supplies for Tarapore being planned.

4. Indian parliament discusses the separation and passes any necessary legislation. March 2005-ish

5. India begins negotiating with the IAEA on safeguards details. It will be very stringent, unlike the Big-5 who essentially have a symbolic inspection arrangement.

6. NSG meeting in summer 2006 clears an India "exception" after China is bribed or pressured to drop its objection. Russia immediately announces supply deals and Canada and Australia send their people to New Delhi to talk Uranium contracts. :)

7. After Congress reconvenes post Summer 2006 break, Bush admin will present legislation to amend US-laws. After Russia and France appear to be nearing big reactor deals, Congress hurriedly passes law changes to enable American companies to bid for India's contracts. This will likely happen by the end of 2006 or early 2007.

8. BR erupts in rage after a secret agreement to cap India's fissile stocks is leaked out. :) Seriously folks - a fissile cap is coming, whether we like it or not.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Postby Umrao » 03 Nov 2005 08:54

Sterling Analysis

except one minor quibling,

The India side will all happen ( as a matter of fact even faster than your time line)

But on the greatest democracy side Fitzgerald effect has not been accounted for, VP Dick C will go back to Simpsons show as Mr. "Monty" Burns Nuclear Power plant owner.

Prez Bush will no longer be the most favored son of Bush family as he ruined Jep Bush chances.

fading shot with the song

Desmond has a barrow in the market place
Molly is the singer in a band
Desmond says to Molly - girl I like your face
And Molly says this as she takes him by the hand.

Chorus:
Obladi oblada life goes on bra
Lala how the life goes on
Obladi Oblada life goes on bra
Lala how the life goes on.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 03 Nov 2005 09:09

JUmrao garu

:D Don't worry. This thing has a momentum of its own. It is like a Diwali rocket that is half lit. Congress has an interest in either extiniguishing it or making sure it takes off in a direction it wants. US has already asked NSG to consider it, so it WILL be discussed in the next plenary and prep meetings. Things should happen regardless of Bush's troubles. Let's talk about the fissile cap.

BTW, India will be the 5.5th nuclear power. We will basically get just some of the benefits of NPT nuclear powers but that's what we will have to live with until the Thorium cycle matures.

rajkhalsa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 09:55

Postby rajkhalsa » 03 Nov 2005 09:46

R-man

I think megaupload.com allows the biggest size file uploading

Thanks in advance :)

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 03 Nov 2005 11:02

R-man,

I don't know if you're joking or not, but no. 8 "BR erupts in rage after a secret agreement to cap India's fissile stocks is leaked out. Seriously folks - a fissile cap is coming, whether we like it or not." is a non-starter. Its better to see this thing die.

India has mastered the fuel cycle and in 10 years will be self sufficient in the Thorium fuel. No need for a bad agreement.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Shalav » 03 Nov 2005 11:04

"why would one one need the US to do anything" is a reasonable INDIAN opinion.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Nov 2005 11:13

if we can wind up on pakistani nuclear weapons program, and make them sign up for npt and mtcr, etc.. while we discuss mtcr with unkil, could be a super duper move.

its okay if we don't agree.. put it this way, nothing would be waste if pakis signs up. :wink:

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Shalav » 03 Nov 2005 11:17

SaiK wrote:if we can wind up on pakistani nuclear weapons program, and make them sign up for npt and mtcr, etc.. while we discuss mtcr with unkil, could be a super duper move.

its okay if we don't agree.. put it this way, nothing would be waste if pakis signs up. :wink:


India is not entitled to anything. Who cares what the US does or does not allow us!

Denial of tech will only make us develop an equivalent.

OR

do you think injuns are dumbos who cannot understand tech?

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Postby Anabhaya » 03 Nov 2005 11:26

8. BR erupts in rage after a secret agreement to cap India's fissile stocks is leaked out. Smile Seriously folks - a fissile cap is coming, whether we like it or not.


Why would India agree to a fissile cap ? :shock:

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 03 Nov 2005 11:29

Mort Walker wrote:R-man,

I don't know if you're joking or not, but no. 8 "BR erupts in rage after a secret agreement to cap India's fissile stocks is leaked out. Seriously folks - a fissile cap is coming, whether we like it or not." is a non-starter. Its better to see this thing die.

India has mastered the fuel cycle and in 10 years will be self sufficient in the Thorium fuel. No need for a bad agreement.


The whole timeline is Hypotehtical.
Unkil or NSG agrees or not(India, is asking, "are we qualified to be a responsible member of NSG or, you want us to be a proliferator like Chincom-the last member to join).
India is too far advanced( we even advice chincom, on their nuclear energy program), their 1st, Nuke-energy reactor was in 1989.

There wont be 'capping'.
They all know, India, wont "cap"
It is our Atomic scientific community, who says, they would bring the country more pride, if our isolation, could be overcome, without compromising our strategic needs.

Manu
BRFite
Posts: 765
Joined: 28 May 2003 11:31

Postby Manu » 03 Nov 2005 12:32

NPEC´s executive director Henry D. Sokolski's testimony
slide presentation

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 03 Nov 2005 12:38

X-posted: Pl. bear.

kgoan wrote:
R;

I think it's a fishing or perhaps kite flying expedition. The nuke deal is "done",

It is.
TSJ of course has been saying"..."

Two democracies can not do that.
Japan, has more advanced Nuke tech, but will not threaten
US, hiroshima or not., sit in or out or not.

Interesting point is that the article makes one thing rather clear, Surya aimed at China is fine. Surya even implictly capable of reaching the EU/US is not.

Surya, will be pointed to any of India's adversaries, who, ever that may be (If US or China would like to be in that category, be my guest.)

And i swear on all those lives lost in 1962, they will be pointed to China for sure.

Now this guy is not an idiot (despite the usual babble of "darkies got their missiles from us" stuff - that's just standard). Yet he discusses 3 mythological Surya's, 5000 kms "surya 1", 8-12000 kms "Surya 2" and the 20K Surya 3 and recommends targeting ISRO!

That has got to be kite flying - or he's bucking to get an invite for Senate/Congressional hearings. After all, with the Non-proliferation Ayatollohs slowly choking to death on their own stupidity, a vacuum is created in the beltway. We should expect more such "scholars" to come out of the woodwork as the Indo-US thing deepens.

(Remember, as Indo-US ties deepen and start to reflect serious *money*, each little special interest grouping will require their own leverage to threaten GoI with for concessions. So expect more and more "problems" to be artficially highlighted in the US senate/congress given the US speciality in being able to leverage such "soft power" weaknesses. Folks who're somewhat bamboozled by the caste hearings may want to keep this in mind.)


India is too far ahead and advancing to be brow-beaten or 'bamboozled' by any hearings.

India does not and has not received any "strategic or military" "aid" or charity from unkil for over 30 yrs.
Unlike Israel-$4Bln/yr, Egypt 3.5$Bln/yr or TSP/$2Bln/yr(almost free, F-16), the 3 most largest recipients of Unkil's largesse.

We, Indians, tighten our belts, and use our hard earned money($$$), unlike, unkils's aid, to secure our country.

India do receives(miniscule or token, and we are not ungrateful for that) $ 60-80 Mil./Yr. for some charity, humanitarian progs.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 03 Nov 2005 18:18

Nuke deal sinks (?)


Probably will be delayed into oblivion

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 03 Nov 2005 20:09

Raj,

Relax. There is more to this than US law change.

As I have always said, US selling us nuke technology is not important to India. Russia and France are ready to sell us everything under the sun. Canadian and Australian companies are drooling at the prospect of selling Uranium to us. The real action is at the NSG. Unless something drastic happens, by this time next year, India will have 3-4 new nuclear technology and Uranium deals signed. After that, Uncle will rush to change rules to accomodate us. You cannot expect 30 year old laws, supported by both American parties, to be changed in 3-4 months, as would be needed when Bush visits India.

BTW, one of the fiercest, most visible and most powerful critics of the deal, in Washington, told me that fundamentally, this deal enjoys full support among all segments in the US and it WILL go through. What we see is every lobby demanding its pound of flesh, which will occur behind the scenes. Also, India will not stop fissile material production until it is sure that it has reached its goals for the next 10-15 years and any stoppage will be a multilateral one that is agreed to by China and TSP as well.

Let me tell you that the Senators yesterday were way less critical of the deal than what the nonprolatullahs hoped for. There is a feeling that the ayatollahs have mustered up all they have and fired it towards the ship but the vessel is still afloat and moving. Listen to what Joe Biden said yesterday to get this point. There is a feeling that stopping or blockading this deal will have an enormous cost on US-India ties and no one wants to see that.

It took Congress and the Exectuive 13 years to clear nuke sales to China, an NPT nuclear power. We cannot expect India to get through in the US in 3 months.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Nov 2005 21:40

Manu wrote:NPEC´s executive director Henry D. Sokolski's testimony
slide presentation


he calls it abhorrence!? exactly like how religious sects feel about other sects of not following their own faith. your faith is our abhorrence and it is blasphemy by all standards.

allowing india to make more bombs and make their missiles more reacheable to anyplace on the planet v/s thinking strategic partnership and energy cooperation are the exact opposites that is presented. what is mis-represented is the fact that even USA does not signs up with us, we are on the same target as they wished in the wrong sense. Hence, for us if USA ignores us, we are rejuvinated to proceed on that path. if we do, then its a slow process or a streamlined process to attain that target.

they are shit scared of the fallout.. they have to equate pakistan, and all the way asking for what the real issue is. make israel part of the nuclear club, keeping indo-us agreement as the precursor. cleverly asking UK to take care of pakistan, and finally making sure their weapons program is killed.. a few IAEA protected reactors for them, who hates that. but, instead of putting it that way, he has projected it as a negative balancer for energy cooperation.

India can’t meet its current three-phase
nuclear program due to structural
concerns and no amount of nuclear
imports are likely to resolve this unless
India gives up much or all of its original
and rather ambitious nuclear plan of
developing breeders for thorium cycle
reactor systems


I don't understand this at all? what is that India must give up? or is there something that is not shared in the public by our fumble harmers/strategists?

but there are very clear CYAs in the document:
for example:
The US must cap Pakistan as well
– India should reach agreement with Pakistan on such
restraints; the US and its friends are ready to help


clearly passing the buck back to India. :evil:

--

Minimal India's requirements:
Declaring no more fissile military production (as UK, FR, Russia, and US
already do)


I don't think this marries well with the delinking civilian-mil theory. okay we agree to delink, and the next thing unkil wants is to don't make the bombs. i don' think we should agree to this.

We can agree to this once we have achieved our Minimal Deterrent Requirements.. based on our nuclear doctrine that is the most peaceful available on the planet now.

Being free of any US nuclear or nuclear-capable missile proliferation
sanctions for at least two years and clearing up any outstanding
sanctionable actions.[/i]

Care must be taken here on the defence purchases (if we are to chose f18s as mrca).. its all only for two years.. after that unkil is free to sanction us.

– Tarapur spent fuel cannot be reprocessed without prior US consent
– CIRUS must be declared to be a civilian reactor for peaceful purposes


Are we ready for this?
Last edited by SaiK on 03 Nov 2005 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 03 Nov 2005 22:00

R-man,

The way I see it, the nuclear deal has to be wrapped up before Bush leaves office in Jan. 2009. Democrats are against it, even some of India's so-called friends in the US Congress. A Democratic president would be against it as well, given their track record on following the NPT, and a Republican president may not be enthusiastic about it if he has to fight with Congress. Can India get "buy-in" with significant members of both parties? It depends on how much GE, Boeing and Wal-Mart bat for India. The buy-in may be possible in a couple of years, but I don't see it right now.

I understand this is a long process, and there will be some give and take, but a fissile material cap is too much to give up. If the Bush administration really says to hell with all the B.S. treaties and resumes nuke testing, it would really help India.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 04 Nov 2005 00:09

27-Oct-05
Congressional Doubts Persist on Indian Nuclear Deal

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Experts and U.S. lawmakers at a hearing yesterday continued to question the Bush administration’s proposal to allow India access to U.S. nuclear energy technology, saying it could benefit Indian nuclear weapons and ICBM programs and harm nonproliferation efforts (see GSN, Oct. 13).

The proposal requires changes to numerous U.S. export control laws, created by Congress in the 1970s following an Indian nuclear test in 1974, which prohibit nuclear technology transfers to countries not under full international safeguards.

A senior U.S. official last week suggested that India’s support for U.S. efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear program had eliminated much congressional opposition to the deal. At an International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting last month, India voted in favor of a resolution declaring Iran in noncompliance with its international safeguards obligations (see GSN, Sept. 26). New Delhi, however, issued a statement to indicate that it did not wholly endorse the finding. The board passed the resolution by a majority vote, the first time a major safeguards decision was not approved by consensus.

“Since the Indian government was very clear and decisive to vote in the IAEA, that issue has disappeared in the U.S. Congress and we now find substantial support in the U.S. Congress for the agreement reached in July,” Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns told an Asia Society gathering last week.

“I think by the time President [George W.] Bush visits [New] Delhi, and India, in the early winter of 2006, you will have seen both governments have met our commitments, and I hope President Bush and Prime Minister [Manmohan] Singh will be in a position bring this agreement into effect,” he added.

House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) yesterday disputed that opinion in opening comments at a hearing on the India proposal.

“I am troubled by a number of public statements by administration officials that congressional support for the overall agreement is broad and that our consent is virtually guaranteed. I do not understand how these statements could be made with Congress having yet to be fully consulted,” he said.

Restating his criticism from a hearing last month, Hyde said the administration still has given Congress “little if any information … regarding either the details of its ongoing discussions with the Indian government or the legislation it plans to introduce.”

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at a briefing yesterday that India would first need to “take several steps,” including separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities, “before we actually present any agreement to the Congress.”

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Executive Director Henry Sokolski, testifying before the committee yesterday, warned that the administration’s press to quickly finalize a deal by early 2006 could undercut Congress’s ability to shape its details.

“I think you folks need to weigh in … before they pre-empt your legislative power,” he said.
Support and Opposition

While Hyde said he was undecided about the proposal, some committee members did appear to have made up their minds — both for and against the agreement.

Ranking Democrat Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) said New Delhi’s vote at the IAEA meeting had resolved his “deep concern over India’s relationship with Iran.”

“I am pleased … that India has since demonstrated that it takes this new partnership with Washington seriously,” he said.

While the details of the proposal “are still being worked out,” Lantos expressed confidence the deal could be modified to satisfy Congress. It should also cause a “strengthening of the international nonproliferation regime,” including by increasing international safeguards on Indian technology and extending its moratorium on nuclear testing, he said.

Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) said the deal would destroy the United States’ credibility as an international nonproliferation advocate.

“In the 60s, India signed a 30-year agreement with the United States to only develop peaceful uses from the nuclear technology we exported to them. India broke its word and detonated a test nuclear bomb in 1974. India then refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and today almost all of India’s nuclear facilities are not subject to the IAEA safeguards,” he said.

“Now, we have U.S. officials actively proposing to join India in breaking its word, looking the other way, rewarding India for bad behavior. This is unacceptable. We either have a treaty or we do not. And if we allow India a pass, [we’ll have] a long line of other countries that will expect the same pass,” he said.
Experts Critical

Only one of the five experts asked to testify at yesterday’s hearing expressed enthusiastic support for the proposal.

“This new policy gives the U.S. an additional ally in the international effort to restrict the flow of [nuclear] technology,” said Neil Joeck, a senior fellow at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Global Security Research.

While “important concerns have been raised about the details of the safeguards,” he said, “we should not overlook the powerful symbolism of the step that India has already taken,” such as its proposed commitment to help negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for weapons.

The other four experts expressed concerns. Each suggested ways in which the proposal could be amended, such as by requiring India to stop producing military fissile materials, ending nuclear weapons production, and precluding cooperation between the two nations on sensitive fuel-cycle capabilities.

“I think the deal at least as it currently stands is a loss for nonproliferation,” said Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser on international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

India’s proposal to separate military and civilian nuclear activities and place the latter under international safeguards is “largely symbolic,” he said, as it “has no effect on India’s ability to keep on producing fissile material for nuclear weapons at facilities not designated as eligible for safeguards.”

Without additional requirements on the deal, said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, “it will be difficult to have confidence that the agreement will not cause serious damage to nuclear nonproliferation.”

If India fails to end fissile material production for nuclear weapons, U.S. nuclear assistance “would likely spill over into India’s nuclear weapons program,” he said.

The international community could perceive the agreement as rewarding ongoing bad behavior by India, said Leonard Spector, deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

He said India’s violation of nonproliferation obligations persist today, with its continued use of a Canadian-supplied research reactor in its nuclear weapons program. The CIRUS reactor, donated for nonmilitary use in 1956, still “features prominently” in India’s nuclear weapons program by supplying a significant amount of plutonium, Spector said.

“What matters is the question of whether or not the United States should undertake new nuclear commerce with a country that is misusing old nuclear commerce, partly from us but mostly from Canada,” he said.

Approving the proposal in its current form would help India expand its nuclear weapons arsenal, give technical support to its ICBM program, and undermine efforts to restrict nuclear and missile proliferation, according to prepared testimony by Sokolski.
Question of Priorities

Representative Edward Royce (R-Calif.) said curbing the spread of nuclear weapons should be the overriding consideration when evaluating the administration’s proposal.

“The goal of curbing nuclear proliferation, which is a global concern, should trump other factors when gauging this deal. WMD proliferation is that great a threat,” he said.

Lantos, on the other hand, suggested that fostering a strong U.S.-India strategic alliance and enlisting India as an ally in preventing Iranian proliferation should be key factors for Congress as it considers the deal.

While members should be informed about the technical aspects of the deal, he said, “At the end of the day, we will still be left with the necessity of making decisions on the basis of political and strategic criteria.”

There are “overarching strategic [and] political criteria which must be brought into play before Congress decides to act,” he said.

Einhorn, however, argued that the proposed deal suggests a deprioritization of nonproliferation by the United States. “In general, the deal conveys the message that the United States, the country that the world has always looked to as the leader against proliferation, is now giving nonproliferation a back seat to other foreign policy goals.”

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Nov 2005 02:02

U.S. raises the bar on nuclear deal
Bush administration officials have stipulated that India must sign a more restrictive safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency than either the U.S. or any of the other four "recognised" nuclear weapon states has done.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 04 Nov 2005 02:16

^^ Above is true. Either our side did not get the memo or the US has moved goalposts.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 04 Nov 2005 02:21

self-deleted
Last edited by Rye on 04 Nov 2005 02:43, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Nov 2005 02:29

To hell with it. If Tarapur cannot be safely refuelled with MOX, decommission the reactors. Reprocess ALL the Tarapur fuel and add it to the plutonium stockpile.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 04 Nov 2005 02:37

Jaikissan wrote:X-posted: Pl. bear.

kgoan wrote:
R;

I think it's a fishing or perhaps kite flying expedition. The nuke deal is "done",



India is too far ahead and advancing to be brow-beaten or 'bamboozled' by any hearings.

.


Unki fut gayi hai

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 04 Nov 2005 02:44

Rye wrote:Rangudu, this seems like a deal breaker, does it not?


Nope. There may be ways to thread the needle. It is going to be a price that GoI brainstrust probably will think is worth paying. We will never be a full fledged NPT nuke power. That will be a price we have to pay until the NPT exists, for our stupidity in not testing before 1968 or for not negotiating shortly afterwards.

Why do Sweden and co insist on this? Because they do not want Australian or Canadian Uranium diverted to our nukes. Currently the Big-5 can do just that. We don't want to, of course.

I think we can get around this by declaring as military facilities more installations than we currently need, to take into account any contingencies.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 04 Nov 2005 02:55

Acharya wrote:
Jaikissan wrote:X-posted: Pl. bear.


kgoan wrote:
R;

I think it's a fishing or perhaps kite flying expedition. The nuke deal is "done",



India is too far ahead and advancing to be brow-beaten or 'bamboozled' by any hearings.

.




Unki fut gayi hai


THe most important statement in the PDF document is that India has outnegotiated in the nuke deal and for this India has to pay a price.
Hence all the extra deeper compliance they are demanding for the approval.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 04 Nov 2005 03:34

Rangudu:

Wasn't the stated U.S. goal post-POKII "Cap, Rollback, and Eliminate"?

If India accepts Fissile Material Cap, doesn't it mean the U.S. has achieved the first of the above three goals?

Looks like what the U.S. couldn't achieve vis-a-vis India through sanctions, it will now achieve through promises of civilian nuclear cooperation. :(

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 04 Nov 2005 03:38

Looks like what the U.S. couldn't achieve vis-a-vis India through sanctions, it will now achieve through promises of civilian nuclear cooperation. :(


The boy and girl just met...perhaps we should wait before naming their three children.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 04 Nov 2005 03:39

I liked the part about most energy coming from cow dung and wood. :roll:

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 04 Nov 2005 03:44

Of all the nuclear powers, US, UK, France and Russia are not producing any more fissile material. China has privately said it has stopped making it but not said so publicly.

Now, India cannot ever match China bomb for bomb. What we need is definitley more than what we have now but we will probably make enough by 2-3 years for our current deterrence needs. There is no reason for India to not agree to a non-binding, informal fissile stoppage agreement AFTER GoI determines that it has enough for now.

We can always produce more if the situation changes, providing we leave enough facilities under the military designation.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Postby KrishnaK » 04 Nov 2005 14:27

I wonder what our position would have been if we had Indian troops in Iraq right now.

/kk

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23933
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 04 Nov 2005 14:46

China attacks Indo-US nuke deal

Look who is talking, probably the world's greatest proliferator.

"Now that the United States buys another country in with nuclear technologies in defiance of international treaty, other nuclear suppliers also have their own partners of interest as well as good reasons to copy what the United States did," it said.

"A domino effect of nuclear proliferation, once turned into reality, will definitely lead to global nuclear proliferation and competition," the paper warned.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2005 16:25

I suspect that the Chinese lobby in the US is going all out to sabotage the Indo-US nuclear deal.This deal,if it comes through is a huge step in the right direction,as it finally and effectively gives India an equal nuclear weapon power status as the other powers,even though those powers may deny it as such.However,despite Bush's nuclear gambit,his position politically right now is very weak due to a host of factors,not least the "Plamegate" scandal and the SC nomination debacle.Our long term enemyChina, will never agree to equality with India.It has done everything in its power for the last 50+ years to do so,building up Pakistan as our enemy to weaken us and divert our attention from its goal of dominating Asia and the Pacific.Right now,it has set its eyes upon the Gulf and the oil there and is planning a future course of action to exert even more influence,including a military presence there courtesy Pak -read Gwadar and possibly Iran in the future.

Unfortunately,cretinous elements in the US's political elite still want India to play a subservient role in global affairs and like the doddering power inebriated Long March Chinese Communist leadership and their long-in-the-tooth arrogance towards India,are combining to prevent a new more equal realtionship with the US from emerging.It remains to be seen whether a new thinking about India emerges from the US and whether we are to be given a fair deal.If not,then the hardliners who are suspicious about US global intentions will see their stand justified.It is for the US,not India to take a courageous stand with respect to india. We have been a most careful nuclear power against global nuclear proliferation unlike China.The US's lawmakers must see that it is better to have India (as Kennedy said of johnson) "inside the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing in"!

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby jrjrao » 04 Nov 2005 19:12

Article in the WSJ today. Sokolski, the ever-quotable colicky propagandu, makes an appearance as well.

India Bets on Nuclear Future -
Backing Probe of Iran Draws Closer Look
At New Delhi's Ambitions

By JOHN LARKIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 4, 2005; Page A12
MUMBAI -- India's surprise decision to side with the U.S. in pushing to investigate Iran's nuclear activities has thrown the spotlight on another ambitious and controversial nuclear program: its own.

In September, India supported a resolution passed by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency alleging Iran had engaged in "a policy of concealment" in its nuclear program -- a move that paved the way for the IAEA to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council, where Tehran could face economic sanctions.

India's decision angered the Congress party-led government's left-wing coalition allies, which oppose a tilt toward Washington. Moreover, it struck energy and foreign-policy experts as counterproductive, as New Delhi has been pushing for closer ties with Iran, whose vast oil and gas reserves it considers crucial to the subcontinent's energy security.

But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government is focused on bigger stakes: preserving a pact negotiated with the U.S. to provide technology to India's atomic-power industry and allow it to import foreign uranium supplies for its reactors. New Delhi's pro-U.S. stance on Iran has demonstrated how far it is prepared to go to foster nuclear energy, and re-ignited domestic debate on the feasibility of nuclear power. The pro-nuclear lobby views it as key to India's energy security, while antinuclear activists say it offers false hope.

The preliminary deal, signed in July in Washington, could help remedy India's chronic energy shortages by opening the way to build dozens of new nuclear-power plants, say pro-nuclear advocates in India and the U.S.

The U.S. nuclear deal -- details of which are still being negotiated -- could have unraveled if New Delhi had refused to back the IAEA resolution, Indian officials and security analysts say. The resolution alleged that Iran's failure to suspend its uranium enrichment activities violated its obligations as a signatory of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a global accord signed by 187 countries that was initiated in 1970 to slow the spread of nuclear weapons. But the resolution stopped short of referring Iran to the Security Council. A decision on whether to take that step is expected at the next IAEA board meeting on Nov. 24.

"Given the choice, I think India will choose the U.S. over Iran," says Brahma Chellaney, a defense specialist at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi.

The U.S. nuclear agreement is considered vital to New Delhi's long-term aim of tripling nuclear-power output to 20,000 megawatts by 2020. U.S. companies such as Westinghouse Electric Co., a subsidiary of U.K.-based British Nuclear Fuels PLC, and General Electric Co. provide technology for many of the world's nuclear-power plants.

India's refusal to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty has barred it from most transfers of nuclear technology and fuel. The U.S. agreement opens the way for this trade with other nuclear-capable nations, too, if Washington can persuade them to agree to its terms.

The agreement hinges on congressional ratification, which might not come easily. Senior Republicans have already expressed anger that the administration of President George W. Bush sealed the July deal after months of secret negotiations, without the involvement of Congress.

It came under attack, too, from nonproliferation experts testifying during hearings at the House International Relations Committee on Oct. 26. Robert Einhorn, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation in the Clinton administration, testified that the agreement only requires India to reaffirm existing commitments like a nuclear-test moratorium, and has "has no effect on India's ability to continue producing fissile material for nuclear weapons." :((

India currently has electricity-generating capacity of 120,000 megawatts, chiefly from coal-fueled power stations. But peak power demand exceeded supply by 12% in the year ended March 31. In a recent report, consultant McKinsey & Co. said India needs to add 90,000 megawatts of power by 2012 just to sustain economic growth at its current pace of about 7% a year.

"Without access to nuclear energy, there's no way India can meet that target," says Ashley Tellis, a senior associate at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a strong supporter of sharing nuclear know-how with India.

India already has one of Asia's biggest atomic-power industries, with 15 nuclear reactors and seven more under construction, using limited supplies of local uranium that can fuel its current reactors but can't sustain a larger program. That puts it in the same league as China, which has 10 reactors and plans an additional 30 over the next 15 years.

Under the July agreement, Washington promised to seek changes in U.S. law and international rules governing atomic programs to permit exports of foreign nuclear equipment and technology to India. In return, India would have to submit its civilian nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards. New Delhi wouldn't be required to open its military nuclear installations to inspections, but it must separate them from civilian programs and continue a self-imposed moratorium on bomb-testing.

The deal was a sharp reversal of U.S. policy: To date, such terms have been given only to nations that have agreed to controls enshrined in the Nonproliferation Treaty. India has been cut off from supplies of nuclear material and technology since it tested an atomic device in 1974.

In 1998, the U.S. imposed economic sanctions -- since removed -- after India detonated five nuclear devices in tests that prompted a confrontation with Pakistan and sparked fears of a regional nuclear-arms race.

S.K. Jain, the managing director of the Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd., a government agency that oversees nuclear-power generation, believes the U.S. deal will allow India to build 40 new reactors over the next 15 years. "We are a net energy-importing country," he says. "So we have no option but to explore [nuclear] energy."

Still, the deal with Washington has opponents in India as well in the U.S. For example, domestic critics argue that nuclear power won't offset dependence on imported oil -- the biggest item on India's energy-import bill -- since most of the imported crude is refined into petroleum products to fuel vehicles.

"The idea of nuclear power being a sustainable energy form in India is nonsense," says Praful Bidwai, :(( a writer and antinuclear activist based in New Delhi.

But it is the possible impact of the U.S. pact on India's nuclear-weapons programs that has some American experts worried. These critics are concerned that India will be able to shield much of its bomb-making nuclear facilities from international inspections. India, says Mr. Jain, has four reactors under IAEA safeguards. But critics point out that hasn't stopped India from making bombs.

"Unless we can get India to halt fissile production, what we are in effect doing is egging on the worst of the [political] actors in India to make more bombs," says Henry Sokolski, :(( :(( the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington.

Both governments want to nail down the agreement quickly. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, visited India in late October for talks with senior Indian officials. New Delhi says it wants a breakthrough before President Bush visits India early next year.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113105794299887773.html

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 04 Nov 2005 20:16

KrishnaK wrote:I wonder what our position would have been if we had Indian troops in Iraq right now.

/kk


Long term direct/indirect cobtrol of iraqi(kurdish) area oil supplies.
India a permanant UNSC.
Military aid @$40-50 Billion/years.
TSP's jihad rolled back.

ravula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 11:31

Postby ravula » 04 Nov 2005 21:31

Jaikissan wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:I wonder what our position would have been if we had Indian troops in Iraq right now.

/kk


Long term direct/indirect cobtrol of iraqi(kurdish) area oil supplies.
India a permanant UNSC.
Military aid @$40-50 Billion/years.
TSP's jihad rolled back.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Don't you think its time to wake up? 50 Billion per year Mil aid?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Nov 2005 21:34


Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 04 Nov 2005 21:37

There are a lot of anti-India actors trying to derail the nuke deal. Its best to stick with it instead of throwing in the towel. That is exactly what these anti-India people/groups/countries want. No need for that. Try to make Unkil stick to the terms of July 18, 2005 and clarify India's position as well.

This process will take years and if Indo-US trade hits $100 billion this deal will happen. When? I don't know.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests