Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement

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

Postby SaiK » 14 Oct 2005 23:21

why is it that we have to chose either iran or america kind of discussion happen. i am thinking we need both iran and america, for both oil and nuclear energy. more oil for our ever expanding automobile industry and more nuclear energy for more expanding infrastructure and development.

mass transport can be run on nuclear energy, but should be designed such that none is made to use oil at all. i wonder which city in the world is planned or is capable of planning to run everybody on nuclear energy. if is, then it must be a small sized advanced nation or some european country, that has not energy problems at all.

strategically we need to have nice balance to, not to be dependent on one entity, at the same time, environmentally concerned, and preserve natural resources.

alternative energy source like solar, wind, ocean and others should also have a larger share [atleast 20%] of our reqs.[/code]

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

Postby Rye » 14 Oct 2005 23:30

SaiK wrote:
why is it that we have to chose either iran or america kind of discussion happen. i am thinking we need both iran and america, for both oil and nuclear energy. more oil for our ever expanding automobile industry and more nuclear energy for more expanding infrastructure and development.


Yes, agree completely. Rien's claim that India's interests have to be subservient to Iran's interests because we need their oil goes against the kind of policy you state above. We should take whatever we get from whomever we can get it, and try to get the best deal on it. We cannot undercut our energy options simply because it may make Iran or the US uncomfortable.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Postby Rien » 15 Oct 2005 18:32

Rye wrote:That's your opinion. Everything works on a quid pro quo basis, and if Iran wants to discomfort Israel more than listen to India concerns about forcing the NPT on all countries, well, India has to take a similar approach to Iran's concerns. Self-defeating policies based on pant-browning is not the answer.


I fail to see how a policy of capitulation to US demands is not acting like a Pakistani. Bush says jump, India abandons literally decades of diplomatic effort spent on getting Iran onside. India has spent a hell of a lot of time and money on Iran. Northern Alliance ring a bell?

Rye wrote:Greasing up and bending over to Iran and stabbing ourselves in the foot by closing our other energy options is not the answer.

Who are they going sell to? the uranusians?


This is oil they are selling. There is NO ONE who doesn't want it. I would suggest China. And supporting Iran is keeping your energy options open.
India has its own nuclear reactors. I want to explain my position very simply:Prior to IAEA vote: India has own nuclear reactors, potential nuclear deal on the cards with USA, and has oil/gas from Myanmar/Iran.

Now: India has no signed deal with US. No Iran. Majority of domestic nuclear reactors will now be under IAEA safeguards. Only future supplier is now Myanmar. Under strong Chinese control. This is good?

Read this website.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/india.html

Once you have .. consider. The USA doesn't use its own "American is the best" reactors in its own country. America is offering substandard technology that the country has no use for. If it cannot provide for its own energy needs, how will it provide for India's? Japan, not the USA, is the country to approach for renewable energy. No nation in the world is less capable of solving energy needs than the USA.

Rye wrote:Besides, what happens if there are UN sanctions, as there will be if they go down a path of confrontation? What is the value of the Iranian contracts when that happens?


China has promised to veto any referral to the UN council. The US may attack Iran .. so what? It does not dare attack Iran's oilfields because the USA is the world's biggest oil guzzler. The USA will pay the most for any oil price hike.

Rye wrote:Do we foreclose the option of potentially getting nuclear fuel from elsewhere because of the option of potentially getting oil from Iran, and signing contracts with Iran that may or may not be worth paper they are written on, due to Iran's troubles with other countries?


You are suggesting we pass on guaranteed supplies of Iranian oil and gas for worthless promises? May I remind you of the word potential. It means not yet done, unrealised, might happen. Not has happened. I object greatly to selling out proven Iranian gas/oil reserves without any uranium. India is trading something of great value for .. nothing. At the end of the day.. India has lost gas and oil reserves. It has gained no .. nada zip nothing in the way of uranium.

Your position would be better than mine if India had gotten a hundred tons of uranium for that vote. That would be worthwhile.

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

Postby Rye » 15 Oct 2005 19:10

Rien wrote:
You are suggesting we pass on guaranteed supplies of Iranian oil and gas for worthless promises? May I remind you of the word potential. It means not yet done, unrealised, might happen. Not has happened.


Yes, I am aware of the meaning of that word, and you may think that the Gas supplies are guaranteed, but that assumes that Iranian govt. won't be screwing itself and us in the process with its current position of confrontation. Supply of iranian oil is not guaranteed if there are hostilities or sanctions.

What I object to is Iran getting itself into a dogfight with the US by taking rigid stances, and then expecting India to screw its own interests by siding with Iran....that is not reasonable. If Iran draws itself into hostilities with the US or whatever, it is not India's business one way or another, unless providing support to Iran will not affect Indian interests in any significant way.

Having said that, there is every possibility that the US repeats another Iraq scam on Iran, and if that happens, I am against India supporting the US in foisting war on Iran, and I seriously doubt that the GoI will do that either.

I object greatly to selling out proven Iranian gas/oil reserves without any uranium.


So do I. And if the US is stringing us along with BS, I am sure that the GoI will object to such behavior too, and in that case Iranian oil it is.

India is trading something of great value for .. nothing. At the end of the day.. India has lost gas and oil reserves. It has gained no .. nada zip nothing in the way of uranium.


Maybe...maybe not...hard to tell right now. Agreed that the US is completely capable of screwing India over, and will probably do so too, but there is a small chance that it will follow through on its agreement.
If the US asks India "to take the next steps" a few times in succession, and its next step is a promise that needs congressional approval...it would be time to back Iran and consider Iran as our source of energy, but we have to wait for all these eventualities to play out and cannot assume anything one way or another, IMO.

Your position would be better than mine if India had gotten a hundred tons of uranium for that vote. That would be worthwhile.


I am not sure that is a reasonable expectation, and I am not saying my position is better than yours...time will tell which one is right. I am just saying that there are events yet to happen before we can predict the future with more accuracy. However, Iran's stances in the international arena where it conducts its foreign policy on its own imperatives, regardless of whether they screw Indian interests are not, is not something to be winked at. India needs to proceed focussing on its imperatives not withstanding Iran's objections. If Iran wants to lose India as an ally, they are welcome to renege on their commitments to India -- I suspect Iran is going to need more friends in the coming days, not more enemies, and India has been a good friend to Iran so far even if Iran's actions have not been reciprocal.

Once you have .. consider. The USA doesn't use its own "American is the best" reactors in its own country. America is offering substandard technology that the country has no use for.


Yes, that is true, and I am sure India will develop better technology than what America can offer in the coming years. However, any deal that allows access to the NSG means that India can buy NUCLEAR FUEL from the NSG countries, and that is what we need. The Americans can shove their worthless nuke plants where the sun don't shine, if their "next step" in the "Strategic partnership" offers us everything but access to the NSG.


If it cannot provide for its own energy needs, how will it provide for India's?


Don't know what gave you that idea, but I can assure you that the US can provide for its own needs very well today.

Japan, not the USA, is the country to approach for renewable energy. No nation in the world is less capable of solving energy needs than the USA.


I am not sure where "renewable energy" comes into the picture here, not that I have any problems with such an ideal --- I thought we are talking about Energy sources, i.e., fuel, nuclear or carbon-based.

If we need to gain access to nuclear fuel for our power plants and if private power plants can be built by <insert any country that would like to build plants in India>, we need access to the NSG and the US guards that door....it has so far made noises that it is going to open the door, and it may or it may not do so...either way, The Indian PM Dr. MMS has made it very clear that the patience of the GoI is not infinite, and if the US reneges on its commitments, there will a giant flushing sound in New Delhi and all the "strategic partnership" rhetoric will vanish.
Last edited by Rye on 15 Oct 2005 19:27, edited 1 time in total.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Postby Rien » 15 Oct 2005 19:24

Rye wrote:Well, if you are offended, that is your problem, deal with it.

India needs energy, whether it is nuclear energy, black, brown, or green gold is secondary. If the US threatens India's oil supply without offering other options to India, then your views would be valid, but that is not the case yet.


I'd like you to explain how the USA is offering India an alternative supply of oil and gas. Where is this miraculous technology that grants India the oil and gas it needs?

I hope you understand that OIL is not substitutable by nuclear power. Work with me here. Say the entirety of India's electricity generation is provided by nuclear. How will your petrol powered car start in the mornings? How will the IAF's migs fly without oil? How will India's tanks go anywhere without oil?

Please. Once you understand this you will understand why it is ridiculous to claim that the USA can provide a substitute. All types of power are not equally convertable to other types of power. You cannot build a nuclear powered Indica.

Rye wrote:Besides, if you think that a pipeline from Iran through Pakistan is going to give India energy security, you need to do some more thinking because that is just horse manure, and stands in the face of all evidence to the contrary, especially given pakistan's overall policy towards India. Again greasing up and bending over to Iran is not the answer. IF they want to do business with India, that is good, but since they have already decided that their foreign policy is going to be decided by their concerns, India needs to do the same -- anything less would be irresponsible.


I don't recall asking that India do any greasing. What in fact I am objecting to is precisely that ..India selling out Iran at America's say so without any advantage. Should India be a new Pakistan? I never suggested that India route the pipeline through Pakistan. I personally prefer oil/LPG tankers. It is the Indian government that for some strange reason that believes in Pakistan. Not I.

Rye wrote:India needs energy, not oil -- get that straight, specifically a secure long-term supply of energy, as you say so yourself. Also, if Iran is willing offer oil at a bargain to India, then I would lean towards going with Iran, but that is not the case, unless you have any sources that you have read which state otherwise -- India is not getting a bargain.


Oil prices are going to increase greatly over the term of India's contract. Yes, India *IS* getting a bargain, especially if oil prices continue their upward climb. China, India, the whole of Asia industrialising. Oil is a massively undervalued resource.

Rye wrote:That is your opinion -- there are likely futures in which the US can open the door to the NSG, and that is nothing to sneeze at.


AH-CHOO! I think India needs uranium. NOW. Not claims of future supply.
You are the one offering empty promises instead of actual hard uranium.

It cannot even provide enough oil for itself.


Huh? Care to elaborate?[/quote]

U.S. oil production peaked in the early 1970s at about 10 million barrels of oil per day, and has been declining ever since. Increasingly aggressive exploration has been required in recent years to find new oil, but the search has been disappointing in the last 30 years since all major new discoveries have been under water (and thus very expensive to produce).

The United States is the world's largest net oil importer. Again I'm going to ask .. If US nuclear technology is so great .. why is it the world's great oil importer? How can the US provide India technology to replace oil if it *CANNOT* do the same for itself? We need to look to a country that has done a great job in reducing dependence on oil ..Japan.

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

Postby Rye » 15 Oct 2005 20:28

I'd like you to explain how the USA is offering India an alternative supply of oil and gas. Where is this miraculous technology that grants India the oil and gas it needs?


I am talking about energy, and I made myself very clear on that. We need oil and gas and we need nuclear energy too, and we cannot forgo ALL our options on one of them to get the other.

I hope you understand that OIL is not substitutable by nuclear power. Work with me here. Say the entirety of India's electricity generation is provided by nuclear. How will your petrol powered car start in the mornings? How will the IAF's migs fly without oil? How will India's tanks go anywhere without oil?


You stop knocking down your strawmen. I have never made the claim that you are arguing against.

Please. Once you understand this you will understand why it is ridiculous to claim that the USA can provide a substitute. All types of power are not equally convertable to other types of power.



Right. So keep that in mind and read through our exchange again. We need oil and we need electricity for economic growth, and I would argue that our need to have electricity to keep up the power grids that run our factories and industries in a serious way. Therefore, closing our options on the electricity front in order to buy oil supplies that will burn away as soon as we get them seems rather short-sighted.


I don't recall asking that India do any greasing. What in fact I am objecting to is precisely that ..India selling out Iran at America's say so without any advantage.


Did I advocate that? PLEASE read the posts carefully without imposing your thoughts on what I have written. I have repeatedly stated that India should not sell out itself in support of either party.

AH-CHOO! I think India needs uranium. NOW. Not claims of future supply.
You are the one offering empty promises instead of actual hard uranium.


Err...I am offering nothing..not even empty promises, by the way. I think you are in "everyone who has hopes on the nuclear deal is an american sellout" mode, and you probably need to get out of it, to look at the entire picture. In fact, I have only one single point of disagreement with you in this whole argument, which is that India cannot be blackmailed by IRAN'S INTERESTS especially if Iran itself is repsonsible for getting itself into a fight with international bodies -- the prospect of bending over for Iran's interests AT LOSS TO OUR OWN is all the more galling when we consider that Iran has done what it had to, even back a treaty that would force all countries to adhere to the NPT just to screw Israel, which was in THEIR interest, and certainly not in ours.

The way I see it, Iran has signed the NPT and they better adhere to it. IF they get into a streetfight with western powers, they cannot expect us to screw ourselves in going to their aid. period.


U.S. oil production peaked in the early 1970s at about 10 million barrels of oil per day, and has been declining ever since. Increasingly aggressive exploration has been required in recent years to find new oil, but the search has been disappointing in the last 30 years since all major new discoveries have been under water (and thus very expensive to produce).


What you have quoted implies that the demand will outstrip supply in the coming years -- it makes no statements on american ability to grab any and all such supplies.


Again I'm going to ask .. If US nuclear technology is so great .. why is it the world's great oil importer?


Have you noted the amount of energy consumed by the US? Have you seen the obscene number of SUVs running on US roads, not to mention the number of cars/trucks/etc. in general? That will give you the answer. BTW, the US's OWN oil wells are largely untapped and they don't intend to reach for them any time soon -- they certainly have a lot more oil in their backyard that you would think. Also, all US oil majors have massive compute farms that crunch numbers for geological analysis (depth/time migration kind of analysis) based on data collected over the past many decades from a large part of the oil-rich ocean beds that they have mapped so far (and the amount that they have mapped is pretty staggering), so they are not sitting still by any means.


Also, US car companies are finally getting it into their heads to create new technologies that reduce oil consumption in the long run..so I don't think we need to worry about the US's oil supply -- they are more than well positioned for the same.


How can the US provide India technology to replace oil if it *CANNOT* do the same for itself?


Strawman...you are arguing against a point I never made, specifically the point the nuclear energy will replace oil -- they both have their domains of use which do not interesect for the most part. Currently, a lot of industries run generators to supply electricity because India's power grid is overloaded, but this does not mean we need more oil to fuel the generators -- rather, we need to produce a lot more electricity than we currently are.

As for japan, they have used nuclear energy to generate all the electricity that they use which helps them cut down on oil consumption. Bullet trains run on electricity and they ferry a large part of local passenger traffic...besides Japan is too small to be useful as a model for India. We are are a much larger country and solutions that work for japan may not work for china or India or the US.

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 15 Oct 2005 20:38

Rien:

You're not paying attention to details** and your arguments are overly emotional. GoI does not owe either Iran or the US anything.

What's more, if Iran has a hankering to find out what the USAF and Navy can do, they're quite free to do so. GoI will, most likely, smoke a beedie and watch while occasionally offering some gratuitous advice to both sides.

We may be friends with Iran, but if they insist on jumping off a cliff, we can warn them but we sure as heck aren't going to join them.

If you had a friend who believed he could fly by jumping of a cliff and flapping his arms would you join him? Only an idiot would answer yes to that. We're happy to be friends with Iran, but if Iran insists that friendship means joining it in trying to fly by jumping of cliffs and flapping their arms, they're gonna be awfully lonely on that - very short - flight path.

A pragmatic GoI policy implies backing Iran when it dang well suits us to and to back the US when it suits us better or China if it helps us more.

Folks are just going to have to learn to deal with that.

**Details count. On the other thread theres news that we and the Iranians have just spent a billion or so buying LNG tankers to transport Iranian gas to India. Apparently the Iranians have decided they'd rather sell their gas to us than wait for the mythical pipeline or worry about Indian's vote in the IAEA. (Incidentally, the LNG tankers will make the US quite happy - At least for now. If you don't understand why the US would be pleased with that, ask TSJ - if he's in a good mood he'll tell you. Details count).

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 15 Oct 2005 23:08

I think Indian and US tango is not limited to nuke deal or even weapon sale. The issue is whether US is ready to accept India as its strategic partner and help India progress rapidly.


I think that MMS is taking a major gamble with US of A. I think this gamble is though out. It has been in works since mid nineties.

I think whether win or loose, MMS has taken a right decision.

He has taken a risk so that India can take an economic leap.

I think the whole issue can be decribed has MMS and PC attempt to have 8% sustainable rate of growth,

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

Postby Jaikissan » 16 Oct 2005 04:41

Too much discussion regarding India's(MMS's decision) vote in IAEA, as oil-LNG versus Nuclear energy. Iran versus Unkil.

MMS wants 8% sustained growth to claim G-8 or G-10 status. He was not overly-enthusiastic about N-5 UNSC seat hype. He possibly believes, that seat will eventually come down the road, an economist view.(Unkil only favours Japan, for now, possibly the same logic)

As far the IAEA vote, a 'favour' to Iran was done by Indian diplomatic tango with E-3 to 'delay' referral to UNSC...a Shyam Saran spin. And Ahmedinejad was advised to be "flexible" over the phone by MMS, the day before .

This diplomatic spin= Iran you have till Nov( a delay) to completely disclose your full black-market, underground deals with A.Q. Khan . To be 'flexible' and not secretive in disclosure.

TSP is no more in the IAEA board come Nov.
Once that "flexibility" or full disclosure officially happens, TSP has to hand-over AQK to IAEA for grilling, and media plays out the drama to Lantos and buddies.

TSP will be countered, in approaching NSG or Unkil, chincom backing them or not.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13955492

Except Unkil, all, France(Chirac's personal promise to MMS), U.S.S.R.(Ivanov's statement), Blair's joint statement with MMS and Canadians have 'supported' resuming Nuclear trade, CONDITIONAL to changes at NSG.
NSG is not a legally binding body on its members, unlike IAEA.
There are no rules, no Inspectors or UN mandate. It is a set of voluntarily accepted guidlines.
But no one including Russians will ''technically interpret" or bend guidelines to favour India(as they did once before for Kudankulam), they learned the hard-way.
NSG has a 'Consensus' tradition (similar to IAEA) but no voting. Uptil now, Sweden, S. Africa, Austria, and offcourse Chincom have shown readiness to oppose any flexibility to India.
Besides NSG will have to swallow a lot of shit to be flexible to India.
http://www.nsg-online.org/history.htm
History of the NSG

The NSG was created following the explosion in 1974 of a nuclear device by a non-nuclear-weapon State,

State=India

What slow-witted Dubya has undertaken to do or atleast promised to do(Obviously, the beneficiaries, French and Russians will jump to cash-it-in) has made me his admirer for ever. He has already put 4 N. Reactors and ISRO in India out of the controlled-entity list to begin with(NSG or not). Slow-witted? may be, but known for keeping his promises. Russians never even promised that(to unravel NSG) to us before. Even Unkil Congressman Hyde, Lantos' boss, wanted assurances from Nick Burns, if dubya wont circumvent congress, mindful of dubyas capabilities.

Will Iran get enough encouragement from desi-chincoms to defy "flexibilty" and not come clean? Even when 'father' chincom are urging Iran to "fix" with EU-3 http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/All/7577F20A9150521665257099005BA946
or may be MMS may not survive desi-Chincom. http://www.navhindtimes.com/stories.php?part=news&Story_ID=10143

Uranium shortage is not the only factor in N-deal, its the Technology stupid. (Yes we may have Marutis thanks to Japan, but not porsche)
India has not even mined proven reserves of Uranium in Andhra and Meghalaya because of some pinko "Jholawalas".
Besides 2 out of 10 top Uranium suppliers( Non NSG) Niger and Uzbek have never been approached (Silly as it may sound). Uzbeks are even on the sanction list of Unkil. They recently got Unkil evicted out of their Military Base.

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

Postby Jaikissan » 16 Oct 2005 04:58

Before the recent UNGA.
Dubya to Dr. MMS: You are a good man, we can do business with you.
Now, recently, at UNGA, CTBT was reintroduced and was passed overwhelmingly.
3 countries opposed the resolution, the countries:
Unkil, India( a traditional opponent of CTBT) and Palau(Unkil's Bhutan).

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

Postby Gerard » 16 Oct 2005 05:02

I believe the Niger mines are controlled by French companies and therefore fuel from them would be difficult to obtain.

Uzbekistan is a non-NSG uranium exporter ? Ideal source for yellowcake.

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

Postby Jaikissan » 16 Oct 2005 05:21

Gerard wrote:I believe the Niger mines are controlled by French companies and therefore fuel from them would be difficult to obtain.

Uzbekistan is a non-NSG uranium exporter ? Ideal source for yellowcake.


Eventhough, Niger has excess of yellowcake(little expensive, compared to international prices)
Namibia: 213,000 tonnes.
Uzbeks : 93,000 tonnes.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

Historically, We did help Namibia significantly for its Independence. SWAPO(precursor to present state) had an 'Embassy' in India.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Postby Rien » 16 Oct 2005 16:16

Rye wrote:I am talking about energy, and I made myself very clear on that. We need oil and gas and we need nuclear energy too, and we cannot forgo ALL our options on one of them to get the other.


What you actually said:
Rye wrote:Well, if you are offended, that is your problem, deal with it.

India needs energy, whether it is nuclear energy, black, brown, or green gold is secondary. If the US threatens India's oil supply without offering other options to India, then your views would be valid, but that is not the case yet.


How can the USA, as I pointed out, offer India a substitute for OIL?
You claimed that the type of energy is secondary. It isn't. It matters a great deal what type of energy is provided.

India has nuclear reactors. It can deal with countries outside the NSG, which is purely a voluntary group with no actual punitive or verification abilities. Niger, North Korea and many other countries which are under sanctions can supply yellowcake to India. India still has uranium deposits it hasn't even mined. In short:

India can get uranium. India has no reliable access to oil/gas. Myanmar is a Chinese controlled puppet. Bangladesh is a future TSP. The rest of India's oil comes from the terrorist ME.

Rye wrote:You stop knocking down your strawmen. I have never made the claim that you are arguing against.


What does the statement I quoted above say?

Rye wrote:Right. So keep that in mind and read through our exchange again. We need oil and we need electricity for economic growth, and I would argue that our need to have electricity to keep up the power grids that run our factories and industries in a serious way. Therefore, closing our options on the electricity front in order to buy oil supplies that will burn away as soon as we get them seems rather short-sighted.


A thirty year contract to supply oil and gas is "short sighted"? India can buy coal fired power stations now. There are other ways to generate power without going to nuclear.

Rye wrote:Did I advocate that? PLEASE read the posts carefully without imposing your thoughts on what I have written. I have repeatedly stated that India should not sell out itself in support of either party.


Then what are we arguing about?

Rye wrote:Err...I am offering nothing..not even empty promises, by the way. I think you are in "everyone who has hopes on the nuclear deal is an american sellout" mode, and you probably need to get out of it, to look at the entire picture.


Guilty on the American sellout mode. My apologies. I thought you were suggesting India should support Bush all the way through hellfire goddamn the cost in Indian lives.

Rye wrote:What you have quoted implies that the demand will outstrip supply in the coming years -- it makes no statements on american ability to grab any and all such supplies.


Venezeula has stated it will cut off supply to the USA. India and China have Iran and Russia tied up between them. Where will US oil supplies come from?

Venezuela

The loss of almost 3 million barrels per day of crude oil production in Venezuela following a strike in December 2002 resulted in an increase in the world price of crude oil. However, in the short term, the volume loss probably affected the United States more than most other areas. This country receives more than half of Venezuela's crude and product exports, and replacing the lost volumes proved difficult.


Rye wrote:Have you noted the amount of energy consumed by the US? Have you seen the obscene number of SUVs running on US roads, not to mention the number of cars/trucks/etc. in general? That will give you the answer.


I have .. have you? Exponential increase in energy use can't keep going.

Rye wrote:BTW, the US's OWN oil wells are largely untapped and they don't intend to reach for them any time soon -- they certainly have a lot more oil in their backyard that you would think.


Difference between having oil deposits and having "economically extractable" oil deposits. There is gold in sea water but it would cost more than you would get back to refine it out. It would cost more in energy(oil) than you would get back from burning it to extract some of those deposits.

Rye wrote:I don't think we need to worry about the US's oil supply -- they are more than well positioned for the same.


I think this is foolish. I can easily see India having to fight China/USA/EU over oil. A four way war over who controls oil suppplies. I support Iran not because I give a damn about Iran .. it is to secure India's energy supplies. Same reason why USA supports Saudi Arabia. Iran is India's Saudi Arabia.

Rye wrote:Currently, a lot of industries run generators to supply electricity because India's power grid is overloaded, but this does not mean we need more oil to fuel the generators -- rather, we need to produce a lot more electricity than we currently are.

As for japan, they have used nuclear energy to generate all the electricity that they use which helps them cut down on oil consumption. Bullet trains run on electricity and they ferry a large part of local passenger traffic...besides Japan is too small to be useful as a model for India. We are are a much larger country and solutions that work for japan may not work for china or India or the US.


Ah .. thank you for explaining why nuclear power can reduce oil demand. That finally makes sense. I didn't know that. Japan's size is irrelevant. Japan is a major industrial country which uses more energy than India and has used nuclear power to reduce reliance on oil. That is very useful for India. Japan has hybrid car technology which can cut India's oil bill down. Flourescents, wave power, solar technology .. all of this can make a big difference in how much oil India needs. In every respect of energy research and commercialisation, Japan leaves the US in the dust. It is ridiculous to partner with a country that is so backward in energy research when the No 1 is available. I think you have an exaggerated idea of American excellence in technology. In every area of alternative fules research they are far behind Europe/Japan. Even India can do things (Thorium breeder) that US cannot.[/url]

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

Postby Rye » 16 Oct 2005 17:48

Rien wrote:
Then what are we arguing about?


Good question. :)

Please note the single point of disagreement I have on the matter with you in the previous post w.r.t. Iran and its confrontational position with the rest of the world, which is going to affect our oil and gas supply. KGoan has elaborated on the problems that Iran can cause us and why we cannot back them beyond a certain point and screw ourselves in the bargain.

I think this is foolish. I can easily see India having to fight China/USA/EU over oil. A four way war over who controls oil suppplies. I support Iran not because I give a damn about Iran .. it is to secure India's energy supplies. Same reason why USA supports Saudi Arabia. Iran is India's Saudi Arabia.


Not quite. We have not installed a regime that depends on us for their survival unlike KSA/USA. I agree that your motivation for backing iran is sound, but your assumption that there is no cost to us in doing so is not correct, IMO -- the cost of backing Iran increases for us if Iran screws ITSELF, thereby screwing us in the bargain because the 30 year contract they signed with us won't be worth the paper it is written on, just like our deals with Saddam before the Iraq war. If war or sanctions are foisted on Iran, which is completely avoidable if Iran sticks to its commitment for using nuclear power for civilian uses, instead of a nuclear weapons prgram, then it is in less danger of getting (itself and us) into trouble.

India can get uranium. India has no reliable access to oil/gas. Myanmar is a Chinese controlled puppet. Bangladesh is a future TSP. The rest of India's oil comes from the terrorist ME.


Don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think Uranium-based plants is the real prize. Going by everything the gurus on BR have said, fuel for the breeder reactors, i.e., Pu fuel rods for the Breeder reactors is the real prize and that can only come from countries like Russia, which is part of the NSG.

A thirty year contract to supply oil and gas is "short sighted"? India can buy coal fired power stations now. There are other ways to generate power without going to nuclear.


Yes, but we may want to think 50-100 years ahead instead of just 30, and that can only come if India's people are economically empowered and have a steady quality of life without consuming 80% of the world's resources. America's choice 50 years ago to avoid mass transportation in favor of cars has a telling effect on its economy now, when it is too late (and/or too difficult) to have the people get used to a different lifestyle using public transportation. "Short sightedness" depends on what you are looking at. :)

Mekala
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Feb 2005 10:13
Contact:

Postby Mekala » 16 Oct 2005 19:27

Does the agreement in question with UNkill have a perpetual blackmail value? Does Iran hold a perpetual blackmail leverage? Answer to the two questions is a resounding YES a million times.

We can not live under this kind of blackmail till eternity. Both countries are not all-weather friends of India. We reciprocate that relation in the same coin. If it suits us to tickle UNkill's and Iranian's bottom to meet our immediate needs, let us do it with dignity. But we must remember that our problems will never be solved by either UNkill or Iran or for that matter by any other country. We have to solve them ourselves in a way of achieving energy independence. Let all the super brilliant Indian (and pseudo Indian) brains contribute to that line of search and investigative suggestions here.

As for UNkill, we must have friendship or whatever it takes short of GUBO and LTWB, to humour him and get our energy needs met for the time being and till a permanent solution free from fetters is found. But let us not forget even for a moment that UNkill is personification of the DEVIL himself. He has inched eastwards through Nato's europe, european Russia, Cosovo, Iraq the Arab territoy and now Iran. We do not have enough love for Iran to save it from Dubyas evil designs, but Iran is the only country that stands between UNkill and India; once he subjugates it, he links up with TSP and will then become a natural enemy of India with his territory extending right from our western borders to the shores of Japan and South Korea all the way encircling three quarters of the globe westwards. It is always a better idea to keep UNkill as far away as possible from our borders. We must thank Burma (Myanmar) that it showed guts and helped us keep UNkill a little away from us on the eastern side. It is in this context that UNkill should not be allowed to subjugate Iran at any cost in our own interests, and not for our love of that country.

Srini-M

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

Postby Jaikissan » 16 Oct 2005 23:12

"Experts and congressional sources said the administration seems inclined to ask the NSG for a specific exception for India.

But some countries would prefer a broad exception with criteria that other states could also aspire to meet, a European diplomat said.

Pakistan, which like India tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, has asked for similar treatment. The United States opposes this but experts predict China will use an India exception to justify new nuclear cooperation with Pakistan."

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3567
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 17 Oct 2005 04:29

X post from Nooklear thread


Looks like the US is getting ready to deliver on its end....

US will announce changes in domestic laws this week on India getting access to civilian nuclear technology - CNN US about 10 sec ago.

Balwan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Jun 2005 05:13
Location: Haryana

Postby Balwan » 17 Oct 2005 04:48

Jaikissan wrote:http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-16T170744Z_01_KWA661590_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-INDIA-USA.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=

"Experts and congressional sources said the administration seems inclined to ask the NSG for a specific exception for India.

But some countries would prefer a broad exception with criteria that other states could also aspire to meet, a European diplomat said.

Pakistan, which like India tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, has asked for similar treatment. The United States opposes this but experts predict China will use an India exception to justify new nuclear cooperation with Pakistan."


Those countries who would prefer a broad exception are the countries who doesn't have the "BALLS" to stand up to US in broad day light so they want to hide behind the grass of this agreement like SNAKES. As far as China using leverage to pomp her all-lie its all good, this will force these Chapta's to show their card. Only thing that should worry an Indian Nationalist is the spineless, gutless, coward leadership of India. Now is the time for leadership to show some spine, stand up for their country's nationals interest, warn those senators and congressman of US, if they place any hurdle or make any more demands they are on their own against GWAT. We will deal with our terrorism on our own terms and conditions.
Its a great game being played out, board is set, pieces have moved. China will become another power center, Russia will rise again, France who despises US, Germany who wants to get her economy on square footing will side with China.

India is close on the heels of chinese, we can cajole Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, pay Pukis back in the same coin of secterian violence, Afghanistan will be provided with aid, Iran can be helped clandestinely.

If American lawmakers will get their head out of the Arse of lobbyists maybe they will have time to think about their own national interest. Every Great Power must fall after it has risen, the time has come for US to join her Neighbor Mexico.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 17 Oct 2005 04:52

Balwan,

Could you please tone down the rhetoric, a few notches.

Thanks.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 17 Oct 2005 05:11

Rien wrote: In every respect of energy research and commercialisation, Japan leaves the US in the dust. It is ridiculous to partner with a country that is so backward in energy research when the No 1 is available. I think you have an exaggerated idea of American excellence in technology. In every area of alternative fules research they are far behind Europe/Japan. Even India can do things (Thorium breeder) that US cannot.


why do folks love to run down the US? ... especially if it requiires painting with a broad brush?

one can not separate alternative energy commercialization from the realities of the commerce at hand ...

you should read more about alternative energy R&D efforts in the US before making such absurd statements ...

on the other hand, don't let me spoil a good bash fest ... go right ahead :)

[no biggie ... I just happened to read this post while I was reviewing an energy initiative document for the state of california ... it will be public in a few months]

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Postby Rien » 17 Oct 2005 12:28

kgoan wrote:Rien:

You're not paying attention to details** and your arguments are overly emotional. GoI does not owe either Iran or the US anything.


I never argued that it did. What part of "Go for the oil" is hard to interpret?
USA has none. It is a competitor for the beautiful black gold. Iran is a supplier. Iran is the source of India's influence in Afghanistan and in Central Asia .. other oil suppliers. We cannot throw away India's oil supplies for empty promises. You have not paid attention to the glaringly obvious facts.

kgoan wrote:We may be friends with Iran, but if they insist on jumping off a cliff, we can warn them but we sure as heck aren't going to join them.


Iran is India's friend? If you say so.This "friend" is India's blood donor. Without it, India's heart doesn't beat, no blood to keep the brain beating. Damn straight India should open the parachute cord and keep this friend alive. Iran is India's Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find Iranians sponsoring terrorism against India the same way that SA has against the US. I'm not calling them a friend .. I'm saying they are indispensable unless India finds another reliable supplier of oil.

I see Iran-India like the US-Saudi relationship. An unnatural ally of convenience between two nations that neither like nor trust the other. But we do need them. Until the day Russia can guarantee huge oil supplies for India, we do need them.

kgoan wrote:**Details count. On the other thread theres news that we and the Iranians have just spent a billion or so buying LNG tankers to transport Iranian gas to India. Apparently the Iranians have decided they'd rather sell their gas to us than wait for the mythical pipeline or worry about Indian's vote in the IAEA. (Incidentally, the LNG tankers will make the US quite happy - At least for now. If you don't understand why the US would be pleased with that, ask TSJ - if he's in a good mood he'll tell you. Details count).


I do not care about US interests. You do. I think that is the big difference between us. I am only happy that India does not need to rely on Pakistan.
At the end of the day there are no gains for India in supporting the US position and plenty to lose. All access to oil from Central Asia.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Postby Rien » 17 Oct 2005 12:51

Alok_N wrote:why do folks love to run down the US? ... especially if it requiires painting with a broad brush?


It is fact that the USA is lagging behind in energy research. Does the US have a thorium breeder program? Does it manufacture hybrids? Hell .. does the USA even compare to Iceland? Do you know anything about what other countries have achieved?

Japan's energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) is among the lowest in the developed world.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/japane ... #RENEWABLE

Read. In every respect Japan uses far less energy than the USA to produce goods.

US produces gas guzzling SUV's. Japan ..I think the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic speak for themselves. Japan produces 49% of the world's solar cells.

Japan and the USA comparison is laughable. Even Iceland is far far ahead. US is the worst polluter both per capita and in absolute terms.

Alok_N wrote:you should read more about alternative energy R&D efforts in the US before making such absurd statements ...

on the other hand, don't let me spoil a good bash fest ... go right ahead :)

[no biggie ... I just happened to read this post while I was reviewing an energy initiative document for the state of california ... it will be public in a few months]


Oh but I do. Every time I want a damn good laugh 8). California is not the USA. It's like saying California's support for stem cells is the US approach would be a great distortion. California is moving strongly in the exact opposite direction to US government policy. You are living in a pinko liberal environmentalist secular state of the most conservative, religious gas guzzler nation in the world. To be honest ..I don't know why the Californians don't join up with Canada.

The US is also behind in stem cells. Do you think California can make up for that also?[/url]

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 17 Oct 2005 17:08

Rien wrote:It is fact that the USA is lagging behind in energy research. Does the US have a thorium breeder program?


1. do you know who pioneered the Thorium breeding idea?
2. do you know how much weapons grade Pu the US possesses?

Does it manufacture hybrids?


you are confusing R&D and commercialization ... some kids I know made a hybrid ... can they sell it? No. You have to look at subsidies to understand commercialization ...

but, don't confuse lack of subsidies with lack of R&D ... the US is a juggernaut ... the day Uncle decided that he needs hybrids, he'll make sure there are two hybrids parked in front of every house :)

Japan produces 49% of the world's solar cells.


back to manufacturing ... are you claiming that the US can not produce these cells? For example, Japan propped up Hammamatsu with subsidies that were more like a gift ... that is not going to happen in the US ... period.

If you know about Silicon R&D, you would not be claiming that the Japanese are the leaders ... the world is busy trying to figure out how to make amorphous silicon solar panels ... the difference? projected factor of 20 in cost (50 cents/watt) compared to crystalline silicon ... this is again something that was pioneered in the US ... Sanyo in Japan has a program now ...

the Japanese do not lead the US in R&D ... they take new ideas, pump subsidies and commercialize it ... there is nothing wrong with this model in a globalized world ...

the only thing that is possibly wrong is that it misleads some folks into saying stuff like "Japan leaves US in the dust" ...

California is not the USA.


we are talking about R&D efforts ... and CA leads in the US ...

California is moving strongly in the exact opposite direction to US government policy.


and should I think that you have some way to back up such an assertion?

You are living in a pinko liberal environmentalist secular state of the most conservative, religious gas guzzler nation in the world. To be honest ..I don't know why the Californians don't join up with Canada.


on BRF, you get to post such stuff for a brief period ... enjoy it while you can :)
Last edited by Alok_N on 17 Oct 2005 17:16, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 17 Oct 2005 17:12

On some websites, red state bloggers refer to Cali as Californiastan. A pretty funny comment if one looks at it. :shock: :D

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 17 Oct 2005 17:20

indeed ... I can picture our Governator in a turban ... can you? :shock:

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 17 Oct 2005 17:24

delete
Last edited by Alok_N on 17 Oct 2005 18:34, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 17 Oct 2005 17:56

Alok_N wrote:indeed ... I can picture our Governator in a turban ... can you? :shock:


Perish the thought! Think of the children! :oops:

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

Postby Rye » 17 Oct 2005 18:01

Rien wrote:
Iran is the source of India's influence in Afghanistan and in Central Asia .. other oil suppliers. We cannot throw away India's oil supplies for empty promises. You have not paid attention to the glaringly obvious facts.


There is no such thing as transitive influence in geopolitics...if there was such a thing, Iran would not have voted against Indian interests, a glaringly obvious fact that seems to elude you. Again, cut down on the rhetoric and see what's known so far, and don't assume that you know the future better than anyone else (with "empty promises" rhetoric), because you don't. USA's promises may be empty or it may not, either way, we will not know until more events unfold -- why does this concept seem to elude you?

"India is on no one's side because no one is on ours", to paraphrase TreeBeard of Fangorn Forest...and this includes Iranians. Chill out and look at all the options India has before deciding that country X is our lifeblood and country Y is a goddamn thief holding out empty promises or whatever. Without properly analysing the costs and benefits of each relationship in its CURRENT state (not what happened 20 years ago) and the events that could make a difference, you are not going to realize the "boundary conditions", i.e., the point at which the cost of interaction becomes significantly more than the benefit derived from that interaction. There is such a point with Iran too, and I have never stated that we are at that point currently. But whether we get to that point depends on what Iran chooses to do in pushing what the Iranian govt. considers its national interest.

Without it, India's heart doesn't beat, no blood to keep the brain beating. Damn straight India should open the parachute cord and keep this friend alive. Iran is India's Saudi Arabia.


You keep saying that...I think you need to read Robert Baer's book "Sleeping with the Devil" to note the extent of USA's relationship with KSA, before making such comparison. India has nowhere near the kind of leverage with Iran, compared to the USA/KSA relationship.

I'm not calling them a friend .. I'm saying they are indispensable unless India finds another reliable supplier of oil.


No one is indispensable. There is a point upto which India can bear the cost of such a relationship with any country, until the cost of interaction with that country overrides the benefit derived. In Iran's case, our interest is to ensure that Iran and India have a good business relationship, but that does not mean India has to forgo all its options in other areas to maintain this relationship. There is a bigger picture that needs to be taken into account without getting stuck on the current crisis. If the competition for oil is going to be so intense in the future with demand outstripping supply by a huge margin, will a 30-year contract with Iran be sufficient? Or would India be better off keeping all its options open for the longest possible time?

Swaroop
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 12:31

Postby Swaroop » 17 Oct 2005 18:26

Jaikissan, please, please edit your post to shorten the link you have posted. Horizontal scrolling is driving me nuts.....

g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Postby g.sarkar » 17 Oct 2005 19:16

Rien wrote: "I see Iran-India like the US-Saudi relationship."

This reasoning is flawed. US has the Danda, we do not. Saudis can not say Boo without US' permission. While India is not a "small" satellite country like the UK or Pakistan, it does not spend anything like the US in defence, heck it does not spend any like China in defence. This is because our economy is not big enough to sustain this type of expense, while we are trying to catch up with the rest of the world. As a result we can not afford to make the type of mistakes that the US can make. We can not afford a mistake like walking to Iraq like the US did. We have to be extremely careful, not to antagonise the US if it does not directly affect our interests. Again China is an example in this type of behavior. Time is on our side, if we play our cards right, our economy will improve, millions will come out of poverty and lead productive lives. We should not budge, if our interests are threatened, and we do, for example Kashmir or the NTP. But Iran has to fight for its own interests, just as India has to do. You ask what US can do for us, it can provide us with capital and with market, just as it is doing for China, the rest is up to us. Iran can not do that, actually right now no other country can do that. What Iran can easily can do is to lead us into a fight with the US that is not in Indian interest.
I still believe that India should have abstained, not because Iran should get the bomb, but it showed India could be easily pressured, and set a bad precedent of coupling India's vote to the nuclear deal, that may be repeated in the future with some other factor. However, it is a done deal now.
Essentially, the problem is Iran's own making. It should not have signed the NTP, and then secretly work with Pakistan to enrich uranium, India never went for such back door short cuts, but worked steadily for itself. Fundamentally, Iran is a Shia theocracy, while India is a democracy with a large Shia population. There are few common interests between the two. OK sometimes we may agree on certain things, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan and cooperate, but clearly both countries are going in different directions. Sure, Iran can sell us oil and gas. But if it does not, then we will have to purchase it from other oil producing country.
Gautam

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 17 Oct 2005 19:52

Iran is India's Saudi Arabia


Rien,

This statement is illustrative of your ignorance. Read this to understand the background. The Saudi Royal family has depended for 60 years ever since the the Roosevelt-Abdulaziz meeting in Feb 1945 on American protection for their survival against a population which is becoming increasingly Islamic and hostile. Do the Iranian mullah's depend on India for the survival of their regime? Similar holes can be poked through the rest of your arguments which I can see other posters are doing. Do some background reading and understand its implications before you post.

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

Postby Jaikissan » 19 Oct 2005 09:03

Indian Express

This supports my earlier observation:

Jaikissan wrote:Too much discussion regarding India's(MMS's decision) vote in IAEA, as oil-LNG versus Nuclear energy. Iran versus Unkil.

As far the IAEA vote, a 'favour' to Iran was done by Indian diplomatic tango with E-3 to 'delay' referral to UNSC...a Shyam Saran spin. And Ahmedinejad was advised to be "flexible" over the phone by MMS, the day before .

This diplomatic spin= Iran you have till Nov( a delay) to completely disclose your full black-market, underground deals with A.Q. Khan . To be 'flexible' and not secretive in disclosure.

TSP is no more in the IAEA board come Nov.
Once that "flexibility" or full disclosure officially happens, TSP has to hand-over AQK to IAEA for grilling, and media plays out the drama to Lantos and buddies.

TSP will be countered, in approaching NSG or Unkil, chincom backing them or not.
Sify

Except Unkil, all, France(Chirac's personal promise to MMS), U.S.S.R.(Ivanov's statement), Blair's joint statement with MMS and Canadians have 'supported' resuming Nuclear trade, CONDITIONAL to changes at NSG.
NSG is not a legally binding body on its members, unlike IAEA.
There are no rules, no Inspectors or UN mandate. It is a set of voluntarily accepted guidlines.
But no one including Russians will ''technically interpret" or bend guidelines to favour India(as they did once before for Kudankulam), they learned the hard-way.
NSG has a 'Consensus' tradition (similar to IAEA) but no voting. Uptil now, Sweden, S. Africa, Austria, and offcourse Chincom have shown readiness to oppose any flexibility to India.
Besides NSG will have to swallow a lot of shit to be flexible to India.
http://www.nsg-online.org/history.htm
History of the NSG

The NSG was created following the explosion in 1974 of a nuclear device by a non-nuclear-weapon State,

State=India

What slow-witted Dubya has undertaken to do or atleast promised to do(Obviously, the beneficiaries, French and Russians will jump to cash-it-in) has made me his admirer for ever. He has already put 4 N. Reactors and ISRO in India out of the controlled-entity list to begin with(NSG or not). Slow-witted? may be, but known for keeping his promises. Russians never even promised that(to unravel NSG) to us before. Even Unkil Congressman Hyde, Lantos' boss, wanted assurances from Nick Burns, if dubya wont circumvent congress, mindful of dubyas capabilities.

Will Iran get enough encouragement from desi-chincoms to defy "flexibilty" and not come clean? Even when 'father' chincom are urging Iran to "fix" with EU-3 http://www.ptinews.com
or may be MMS may not survive desi-Chincom. http://www.navhindtimes.com

Uranium shortage is not the only factor in N-deal, its the Technology stupid. (Yes we may have Marutis thanks to Japan, but not porsche)
India has not even mined proven reserves of Uranium in Andhra and Meghalaya because of some pinko "Jholawalas".
Besides 2 out of 10 top Uranium suppliers( Non NSG) Niger and Uzbek have never been approached (Silly as it may sound). Uzbeks are even on the sanction list of Unkil. They recently got Unkil evicted out of their Military Base.
[url][/url]
Last edited by Jaikissan on 19 Oct 2005 10:20, edited 5 times in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 19 Oct 2005 09:07

Jaikissan, please take care of this request:

Swaroop wrote:Jaikissan, please, please edit your post to shorten the link you have posted. Horizontal scrolling is driving me nuts.....

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

Postby Jaikissan » 19 Oct 2005 09:13

Alok_N and Swaroop,
I am not that tech savy, i am struggling to find a way to figure/edit 'long hyperlinks'.
I apologise. It is not deliberate,

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 19 Oct 2005 09:27

jaikissan,

here is an example:

{url=www.cnn.com}CNN{/URL}

replacing "{}" with "[]", it becomes this:

CNN

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

Postby Jaikissan » 19 Oct 2005 09:57

Alok_N
Thank You, for your Time and Patience

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

Postby Arun_S » 20 Oct 2005 06:49

India To Forge Plan With US To Separate Civilian, Military Nuclear Programs

Burns was instrumental in developing the partnership agreement, including civil nuclear energy cooperation, which he called "the high-water mark of bilateral relations in nearly 60 years.
New York (AFP) Oct 18, 2005
The United States and India will draw up a plan separating India's civilian and military nuclear facilities to pave the way for implementation of their landmark atomic energy cooperation deal by early 2006, a senior US official said Tuesday.

Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said he would discuss the separation plan with Indian officials during a trip to New Delhi this week.

"Part of the purpose of my trip to Delhi this week is to work with the Indian government on a plan that will separate civilian and military nuclear (programs and facilities) of India over the coming years," he told a forum of the New York-based Asia Society.

He said that the US Congress would be in a position to amend laws prohibiting US nuclear cooperation with India once New Delhi committed itself to the separation scheme.

"Once that plan has been clearly enunciated and once it has been committed to by the Indian government, I think it will be a very short time before the United States Congress makes the necessary legislative changes to bring this into being and that would be a very welcome moment indeed," Burns said.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush agreed on a deal last July in which Washington would give India access to civil nuclear energy related technology once India agreed to separate civilian and military nuclear programmes and place its nuclear reactors under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.

India is a nuclear-armed nation but not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States had placed sanctions on India after its second round of nuclear tests in May 1998, but agreed after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks to waive those and other sanctions in return for support in the war on terrorism.

Under the July deal, the United States had agreed to lobby allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India.

"I think by the time that President Bush visits New Delhi in early 2006 we will see that both of our countries would have met our commitment in this landmark agreement," Burn said as he gave a comprehensive account of US policy toward India in his speech to diplomats, analysts and government officials.

The US-India nuclear deal was part of a groundbreaking pact on a wide range of cooperative initiatives and the launching of a new strategic partnership by Bush and Singh.

Burns was instrumental in developing the partnership agreement, including civil nuclear energy cooperation, which he called "the high-water mark of bilateral relations in nearly 60 years.

India last month was accused by some groups of caving in to US pressure in supporting a IAEA resolution that opens the door to reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for violating international nuclear safeguards.

The vote came after US legislators warned that the nuclear cooperation deal could be jeopardized if India refused to back firm action against Iran, with which New Delhi has valuable energy ties.

Burns said the vote was "a very important sign that India is a responsible nuclear power, that India agrees that non proliferation norms have to be respected.

"Since the Indian government's very decisive and clear vote in the IAEA, that issue has disappeared in the US Congress and we now find substantial support in Congress for the agreement reached in July," he said.

The United States has accused Iran of hiding secret nuclear weapons work, allegations denied by Tehran which insists it has a right to pursue a peaceful civilian nuclear program.

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

Postby SaiK » 20 Oct 2005 08:58

[url=http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-10-19T234848Z_01_FOR985716_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-INDIA-USA.xml&archived=False] No action on US-India deal by nuclear-supply group

[/url]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Key nuclear-supplier nations have put off action on a U.S. proposal to lift restraints on transferring nuclear technology to India, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

The proposal is a key element of a U.S.-India nuclear cooperation deal that the two countries are trying to complete by early next year -- an ambitious timetable in view of the international and U.S. legislative approvals needed to implement the agreement.

The Bush administration this week asked the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to give India a permanent exception to international rules barring nuclear cooperation.

There was positive feedback to the proposal at the group's meeting, but a "decision was deferred until the future," a senior U.S. official said. Washington went into the meeting expecting a consultation, but not action, he said.

At the meeting, Britain, France, and Canada were generally supportive, but Sweden asked "hard questions" and Japan seemed wary of the India deal, officials said.

For nearly 30 years the United States led the global fight to deny India access to nuclear technology because the South Asian nation has developed nuclear weapons and tested them.

But President George W. Bush jettisoned this approach with a July 18 agreement that would permit nuclear cooperation between the two democracies.

He is seeking changes in U.S. law and international regulations to let India obtain restricted items, including nuclear fuel. This would effectively recognize India as the sixth nuclear-weapons state, along with the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

U.S. officials say the broad aim is to complete the approval process before Bush visits New Delhi for a summit in early 2006.

However, there are doubts about whether the U.S. Congress -- where members of both parties have expressed skepticism -- will act by then.

In addition, the next scheduled NSG session in is May, so getting that group to approve the rules change before Bush's visit to India would require a special meeting, officials said.

"I don't think it's going to be able to be done by the summit. It's much too difficult and sensitive an issue," a second senior U.S. official said.

Several factors are at play in the timetable for the deal, which Washington views as key to closer relations with a rising global power and democratic ally.

The second official said it is important for Congress to act before the nuclear-suppliers group, so other nations could not beat American companies to the lucrative Indian market.

U.S. officials want to ensure India soon implements its part of the nuclear deal, including separating military and civilian nuclear programs, to help ease doubts in the U.S. Congress.

Also, Washington wants India to keep supporting U.S. and European efforts to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. A delay by the suppliers group could hold out a carrot for India to stay in line over Iran.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns has expressed confidence the U.S. Congress will approve the deal.

But many members of Bush's Republican party, which controls Congress, and many Democrats fear the agreement excessively benefits India and undermines efforts to halt proliferation.

Congressional leaders crucial to the fate of the deal are pressing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to consult them before proposing legislation to implement the agreement.

Burns, in a telephone interview with Reuters on Tuesday before flying to Paris and New Delhi, said Rice would brief lawmakers later this month.

The administration hopes to propose legislation to implement the deal early in 2006, after India drafts the separation plan, he said.

The plan is at the heart of the deal because it is meant to ensure any U.S. or international cooperation advances only India's civilian energy program, not weapons development.

India is a nuclear power but not a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

RanjanRoy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: ether net

Postby RanjanRoy » 20 Oct 2005 09:28

Defense News 10/19/05

Congressmen Press Rice on U.S.-India Nuclear Deal

Congressional leaders crucial to the fate of a controversial U.S.-India nuclear deal are pressing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to consult them before proposing legislation to implement the agreement.

The leaders make their case in a letter that congressional aides said reflects deep unease about the deal’s consequences and the way the administration secretly negotiated it, without input from lawmakers who must approve it.

“We firmly believe that such consultations will be crucial to the successful consideration of the final agreement or agreements by our committees and the Congress as a whole,” they wrote in the letter, which was obtained by Reuters. ... ...

... .. The letter was signed by Republican Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee; Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and the panels’ top Democrats, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Rep. Tom Lantos of California.


.... .... .. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, in a telephone interview with Reuters on Oct. 18 before flying to Paris and New Delhi, said Rice intends to privately brief lawmakers on South Asia policy, including India, later this month.

The administration hopes to propose legislation to implement the nuclear deal early in 2006, after India drafts a plan for separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities, he said.

The separation plan is at the heart of the nuclear deal because it is meant to ensure any U.S. or international cooperation with India advances only the South Asian nation’s civilian energy program, not weapons development.

Burns said the separation issue will be central to his talks in New Delhi this week but it would probably take a month or two for the plan to be drawn up.

Once a clear separation plan is offered by India, it will be easier to ask the U.S. Congress for the necessary changes, he said.

Burns has said the nuclear deal is among the administration’s top legislative priorities and he is confident Congress will approve it before a U.S.-India summit in New Delhi in early 2006.

But his optimism runs counter to the views of many in Congress.

..... ... “I think this is going to be a very tough deal” to get approved, especially in time for the planned U.S.-India summit, said one Republican congressional aide.

A second Republican adviser told Reuters: “It’s very dangerous to assume we’d be predisposed to act quickly.”

“No one believes the Indians will do that (separation) as quickly as implied in that (Burns) statement. This is just a plan. Why should the United States change its laws before India implements the plan,” he said.

Burns insisted officials are in touch with Congress. “There are concerns out there but I think we’re beginning to answer them. The important thing is to get the agreement done and in the right way,” he said.

The administration considers India a democratic ally and rising global power that will be central to promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the decades ahead.

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

Postby Calvin » 20 Oct 2005 18:29

"Once that plan has been clearly enunciated and once it has been committed to by the Indian government, I think it will be a very short time before the United States Congress makes the necessary legislative changes to bring this into being and that would be a very welcome moment indeed," Burns said.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest