India - Nuclear News and Discussion

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 07:07

ShauryaT wrote: Then you surely do not consider Parakram to be in the same league.


No I do not, very simply because Parakram was about defending India's sovereign soil. That would be like if the Cubans/Russians had landed on the beaches of Flordia!! surely the US would have responded to that.

IG did act, maybe reactively but credit should go to her for the actions taken in Indian's supreme interest, even if, what was won by the gun was largely lost on the table.


True, like all Indian leaders IG still suffered from that lack of finishing touch i.e. the coup de grace. When the enemy is down finish him off, no mercy. She should have got a final status on J&K before releasing the 93,000 dogs.
Last edited by ldev on 19 Jul 2007 07:10, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jul 2007 07:10

ldev wrote:If the NDA which is the logical opposition capitalizes on this, it will be the biggest issue that it can campaign on - the Kangress party selling out India!! And they can come to power 2-3 years from now and promptly abrogate and cancel this agreement. Correct? Or do you think that true to the nature of all Indian governments, they will not have the ba**s to cancel it?
Let us all get off this word of a sell out. If MMS has a particular vision for the country, which has the backing of the Indian people's representatives, then any potential strategic loss will be of the people. The compromise being envisioned is such that few in the media or the MP's will get it. Result: Confusion and since there will be no words to the effect that India will become a slave of the US, most voters will simply vote based on traditional issues, rather than hear the screams of a few sophisticated nationalist intellectuals.

What a potential future NDA government would do to a potential future agreement is anyone's guess. Saying one way or the other, will be prejudging the sex of the baby, even before fertlization.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 07:13

ldevji,

As you have yourself admitted , the deal is only bein spun as helping us get rid of our energy shortage though it does nothing of that sort. So, what does the deal give us ? If we are giving for nothing in return, and certain elements are spinning it as a great deal trying to mislead the people that it will help undo power cuts, is this not a coordinated attempt from within to betray the national interest ? It is all the more reason to dub those who support the deal as sell-outs.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jul 2007 07:14

ldev wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Then you surely do not consider Parakram to be in the same league.


No I do not, very simply because Parakram was about defending India's sovereign soil. That would be like if the Cubans/Russians had landed on the beaches of Flordia!! surely the US would have responded to that.
I think you are confusing Parakram with Kargil. Parakram's trigger was the attack by 4 inidividuals from Pakistan on the Indian Parliament. What another leader in power may have done in response to the attack is anyone's guess.

IG did act, maybe reactively but credit should go to her for the actions taken in Indian's supreme interest, even if, what was won by the gun was largely lost on the table.


True, like all Indian leaders IG still suffered from that lack of finishing touch i.e. the coup de grace. When the enemy is down finish him off, no mercy. She should have got a final status on J&K before releasing the 93,000 dogs.
No, she should not have given the held land back before a resolution to J&K. You cannot keep the prisoners for long.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 07:24

ShauryaT wrote:I think you are confusing Parakram with Kargil.


Oops!! Sorry about that. I really do not know to what extent Parakram served India's interests. I mean there are all kinds of stories about the US and India playing good cop bad cop with Pakistan at that point of time. Now if the US managed to short change India and got a disproportionate share of the benefits of Parakram would the NDA government be keen to advertise that it was hoodwinked by the US? The rumours go that Parakram was the hammer which allowed the US Nest teams access to the Paki crown jewels. If true, the quid pro quo for India should have been a public defrocking of the Paki crown jewels. But such a step would not have been in the interests of the US . So ambiguity reigns.

No, she should not have given the held land back before a resolution to J&K. You cannot keep the prisoners for long.


Sez who? I dont think the US or China who were the two biggest Paki backers in those days would have cared two hoots for those 93,000, but Yahya would have been under tremendous domestic pressure and may have buckled. No harm in dragging it out for 6 months to 1 year.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 07:42

ramdas wrote: So, what does the deal give us ?


That is the great unanswered question in the public domain. If the US wants to, it can give a variety of things in return which India needs, but none of the discussions of the various mutual quid pro quos, which should be there in the background, is in the public domain - unfortunately.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 19 Jul 2007 07:47

ldev wrote: Sez who? I dont think the US or China who were the two biggest Paki backers in those days would have cared two hoots for those 93,000 .


They still are.

Small thing to keep in mind when pontificating the how and why's of the Indo-US nuke deal.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 08:11

That is the great unanswered question in the public domain. If the US wants to, it can give a variety of things in return which India needs, but none of the discussions of the various mutual quid pro quos, which should be there in the background, is in the public domain - unfortunately.


Since we have to go by information in the public domain we have no option but to conclude that it is against our interests. What is it that the us can give us that is worth thiscompromise ? Nothing IMHO

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 19 Jul 2007 09:52


vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 19 Jul 2007 09:53

ramdas wrote:
That is the great unanswered question in the public domain. If the US wants to, it can give a variety of things in return which India needs, but none of the discussions of the various mutual quid pro quos, which should be there in the background, is in the public domain - unfortunately.


Since we have to go by information in the public domain we have no option but to conclude that it is against our interests. What is it that the us can give us that is worth thiscompromise ? Nothing IMHO

What can US give us
    Splinter Pakistan
    Few Hundred Billion in investments
    30 Million Indian immigrants to US and all that that will entail to India



Can think of more. But are they being given?

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 19 Jul 2007 09:54

*Duplicate*
Last edited by vnadendla on 19 Jul 2007 16:35, edited 1 time in total.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 19 Jul 2007 10:04

In the process of making this deal more attractive, we tied our military h/w purchases to this deal. (There are also a few others who are saying that Nuke deal is just symbolic but the real deal is some mythical shift, which includes buying loads of military h/w from US). It might seem reasonable to do so but in the event the nuke deal does not happen we have two choices. We will buy the h/w from US inspite of nuke deal failing which will show us as greatest suckers at par with our paki brothers. Or reject the deal altogether which will make us more dependent on Russians. Either way..we will hand Russians advantage in the short term. No wonder they are asking higher prices even on existing contracts.

What kind of risk management (if any) do our diplos practice?

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 19 Jul 2007 10:17

What can be considered a techtonic shift in US policy we seek from US is that it can grant and back us to keep what was called British India, the whole of SAARC. In the event that is granted and umbarella offered for 50 years, then a poet, a philosopher, an artist, a day dreamer, a nogooder etc can succumb to such dream. In return we will completely become Japan (or Singapore) like poodle and grant them the huge supermarket that can sustain their economy.

Guess I am having too much Pappu (Dal) and hence ...another fart in the wind.. :)

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

Postby Rye » 19 Jul 2007 10:39

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14495036

Another article on the current status of the deal.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 19 Jul 2007 10:42

‘Reprocessing, core of nuclear programme

[quote]New Delhi: The Hyde Act passed by the U.S. Congress last December turned the July 18, 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement into a “fictionâ€

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4471
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 19 Jul 2007 11:54

Are there any gurantees that any foreign nuclear corporation let into India won't produce a Union Carbide type massacare and just run away?

It might be proper to ask this question first before talking any further about nuclear wheeling and dealing.

For US companies and many foreign companies are a law unto themselves when it comes to taking responsibility for tragedies they cause.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 19 Jul 2007 12:36

India, US marathon N-deal talks inconclusive

But, at the end of the day, belying expectations of a possible announcement that the 123 agreement had been wrapped up, both sides were still stuck on the reprocessing issue with the US, while impressed with India's proposal of a dedicated facility under full-time safeguards to reprocess American nuclear fuel supplies, unwilling to agree to India's insistence that it could not allow for international supervision.

Thus, it was decided to continue talks late Thursday morning between Menon after he finishes with his morning meeting with Deputy Secretary of Commerce David Sampson to attempt once again to try and hammer out a meeting of minds on this contentious issue which remains the single remaining issue to be resolved in what is being described as "make or break" negotiations.


Does it mean that the other issues of testing and guaranteed supply of N-fuel have been solved?

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 19 Jul 2007 16:39

[quote="Satya_anveshi"]‘Reprocessing, core of nuclear programme

[quote]The key to this transition, he said, was reprocessing. But Washington did not want Indian policymakers to be patient. “They want to control and slow down our three-stage programme. Once we get hooked on to uranium imports, there will always be official reluctance to pursue this programme and funding won’t be given. It will get a bad beating,â€

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6849
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 19 Jul 2007 20:05

The additional cost concern is valid; however, this risk is mitigated given the commitment to the 2020 plan of 20,000 MWe production and to a more robust nuclear deterrent. To achieve this capability, redundant facilities must be built up and it will cost real money.

What Dr. Prasad's statement is indicative of is that he and others don't believe in the 2020 plan nor an overt strategic nuclear capability.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 19 Jul 2007 20:26

Don't agree. Get backup / duplicate facilities within the same plant. There is a financial advantage to this deal which will offset additional costs.


The disagreement is natural.

DAE Inc, has been computing the associated costs for so long on the back burner that most are not familiar with it.

However, with AK stating that India is in control and can go it alone (the costs are embedded in there), and, now the likes of Dr. Prasad providing some details, has fallen of deaf ears in Washington for sure, and, more than likely in New Delhi too.

Dr. Prasad's comments have to be read along with the comments made by Dr. Gopalkrishnan in Feb, 2006 (PMO arm twisting) and all AKs comments over the past 2-3 years. The problem, clearly, is New Delhi. MMS has never come out against the Hyde Act, and, for closure he needs to do that and not hide behind his parliament statements. The fence is being erected and he cannot stride it and be the Indian PM.

Thankfully today is the last day.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest