India - Nuclear News and Discussion

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 16 Jul 2007 23:19

bala wrote:Just to provide another data point for the agenda of the NPT Ayatollahs, IAEA is reporting the successful shutdown for North Korea's nuclear plant. I presume Iran is next and who knows who is next...

N.Korea has shut its nuclear reactor, IAEA chief

U.N. inspectors have verified that North Korea has shut down its sole functioning nuclear reactor, the chief of the watchdog agency said Monday, confirming Pyongyang's first step to halt production of atomic weapons in nearly five years.

"Our inspectors are there. They verified the shutting down of the reactor yesterday,'' said Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency.


...and then of course there is this:

"Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html

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

Postby Rye » 16 Jul 2007 23:23

bala wrote:
Just to provide another data point for the agenda of the NPT Ayatollahs, IAEA is reporting the successful shutdown for North Korea's nuclear plant.


How difficult is it for NoKo to reopen this nuclear plant, really? This shutdown does not seem permanent by any means, which implies that this is posturing by US and China, possibly some drama enacted by China+US to demonstrate that their worthless non-proliferation regime is "getting results" -- Hey, only one of the three "Axis-of-evil" countries is still standing. The Chinese get to protect their NoKo asset and let the Iranians hang out to dry with this drama of NoKo "compliance" (that can be reversed by NoKo on a whim).

If anyone is taking bets on when the next headline "North Korea reopens nuclear plant" will appear, my wager is "after Bush leaves office". This will cause the Americans to buy a whole new wardrobe for all the NoKo scientists and also give the Chinese a chance to engage with the new admin in the US.
Last edited by Rye on 16 Jul 2007 23:30, edited 2 times in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35885
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 16 Jul 2007 23:24

..and who do you thought was the master plan for iraq war? .. this prez is an useless one in the history of america!. its all cheyney dude, who always has a true caliber gun under his belt.

if cheyney thinks he needs to warn the pakis.. so be it!.. cheyneism didn't hit India, since his oil business has no interests here.

AniB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 00:34
Location: Rockies

Postby AniB » 16 Jul 2007 23:26

Hyde-bound J18.

This is a good time to start chanting. We are a poor people. Developing, brown, third world democracy. "So solly we cant WASTE 95% neutrons. Gotta recylce and use Th". Just like rickshaws, chappals, D2O and Ganesh's trunk. So solly.

Unfortunately also surrounded by nuclear PRC and your nutso allie TSP! Crazy situation huh! We are not yet a NWS as per Tellis and NPA and IEAE so sorry again, equal pardner. Later, like 2043?

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 16 Jul 2007 23:29

SaiK wrote:..and who do you thought was the master plan for iraq war? .. this prez is an useless one in the history of america!. its all cheyney dude, who always has a true caliber gun under his belt.

if cheyney thinks he needs to warn the pakis.. so be it!.. cheyneism didn't hit India, since his oil business has no interests here.


Agreed...in fact I think Cheney should be 'the Prince of Darkness' not Richard Perle (or Ozzy Osbourne for that matter!)...

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

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2007 23:30

Folks, Sorry for dredging some old article, but here is another Feb 2006 article that provides some great foresight:

How a plant has stalled India-US N-deal

How a plant has stalled India-US N-deal

George Iype | February 27, 2006 | 18:58 IST


If the landmark agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India has hit a roadblock, it is over India's fast breeder reactor programme.

It is an issue that India's nuclear scientists agree on unanimously.

They want the Manmohan Singh government to rebuff the US demand to place the country's fast breeder reactor programme under a civilian plan and open it up to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

Here is what three top nuclear scientists have to say:

Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission: 'Putting the fast breeder reactor programme under IAEA safeguards will jeopardise India's strategic interests. The programme just cannot be put on the civilian list. This would amount to getting shackled.'

P K Iyengar, former chairman, AEC: 'Why is this government going back on its word? We are a nuclear weapon country and it is for us to decide (which reactors to put under IAEA safeguards).'

A N Prasad, former director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre: 'As a (nuclear) weapon State, and a non-signatory to the NPT (nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty), India should be able to decide as to what we want to emphasise as our priorities; and a collective wisdom will help the government also.'

Washington insists that if the nuclear deal is to be clinched, the fast breeder test reactor and prototype fast breeder reactor at Kalpakkam near Chennai have to be thrown open to IAEA surveillance.

If you are wondering what the fuss is about, read on:

What is the fast breeder reactor programme?

The fast breeder reactor marks the second stage of the nuclear power programme in India. Unlike a thermal nuclear reactor, a breeder reactor generates more fissile plutonium than it consumes in the process of generating energy.

According to Dr A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, India has eight fast breeder reactors under construction now at Kalpakkam. By 2020 India will utilise thorium in these breeders as fissile material, which will enable the country to produce 1,55,502 GW energy per year.

The programme will help meet India's exploding energy needs.

How is the Kalpakkam station connected with the programme?

The Madras Atomic Power Station in Kalpakkam is the base for India's fast breeder reactor programme.

The centre built a small fast breeder test reactor in 1985.

In 1997, the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, the research and development establishment of the Department of Atomic Energy at Kalpakkam, then successfully built a 40-megawatt sodium-cooled fast breeder test reactor in 1997.

In 2002, the Indian government announced the construction of the country's first 500 MW prototype fast breeder reactor.

What is the status of the project, now that it is under a cloud?

It is on full throttle. With a budget of Rs 3,492 crore (Rs 34.92 billion, approximately $0.7 billion), the project is a proof of India's capability to work on cutting edge nuclear technologies with very little foreign assistance.

How and why it is linked to the India-US nuclear deal?

The fast breeder reactor programme, apart from being a way to meet India's leapfrogging energy needs, is also a vital part of India's nuclear weapons programme -- it produces weapons-grade plutonium.

That is why the US wants it under the IAEA scanner.

Is it true that India is aiming at fast breeder reactors when the rest of the world is abandoning the technology?

Yes. And there is a reason for that. The Department of Atomic Energy in India sees fast breeder reactors as the technology that can secure the country's energy future because it can convert thorium nuclear fuel.

India is one of the few countries that use thorium as an alternative fuel for nuclear reactors. The reason is that India has been compelled to look beyond thermal nuclear reactors because of the scarcity of natural uranium in the country. Thorium is a nuclear fuel India is rich in.

Why have other countries lost interest in the fast breeder programme?

The fast breeder reactor was once considered the best energy source to meet growing electricity demands and to help conserve uranium resources.

Most developed nations have now abandoned the technology.

Experts say, first, fast breeder reactors are not cost competitive with thermal nuclear reactors.

Second, cheaper alternative energy sources are available across the world.

Third, accidents caused by liquid sodium leakage at the Monju reactor in Japan and the Superphenix in France forced countries like the US to turn down fast breeder reactor technology.

Fourth, there is a growing fear that weapons-grade plutonium could fall into wrong hands -� read terrorists The global trend is towards smaller, reactors that are environment-friendly and proliferation-proof.

The US says Japan has opened its Joyo experimental breeder reactor and Monju prototype reactor to IAEA safeguards.

The Japanese fast breeder reactors are subject to full-time advanced verification systems such as neutron coincidence counters, radiation monitoring systems and fuel flow monitors, in addition to video surveillance by the IAEA.

The US wants similar safeguards for the Kalpakkam reactors.

What is India's argument?

India says the US cannot compare the Indian and Japanese fast breeder reactor programmes.

First, it says Japan's Atomic Energy Agency has the freedom to source components and nuclear technology from any part of the world. But the Department of Atomic Energy in India has to rely on its own resources and technologies for its nuclear programmes.

Second, India fears that putting its fast breeder reactor programme open to IAEA inspection will seriously compromise the quality and scope of ongoing nuclear research in India.

Third, India says there can be tremendous leakage of intellectual property we have indigenously developed -- as our reactors would be open to IAEA inspection.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35885
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 16 Jul 2007 23:37

'Why is this government going back on its word?

'cause, there is no govt at parliament. PKI should point at 10 Janpath!

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 16 Jul 2007 23:40

Is it true that it was India who initiated this nuke deal with the US?

Certainly, Perkovitch seems to think so...

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/18nspec.htm

Can anyone confirm or deny this with some authority?

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

Postby Rye » 16 Jul 2007 23:44

Manav wrote:
Is it true that it was India who initiated this nuke deal with the US?


This was stated many times by US sources back in 2003 (possibly perkovich), but do not have links for them, unfortunately.

Even if that is true, our reaction should be "so what?". That is not an indicator of "who needs the "deal" more" and certainly does not mean that the initiator of this deal is to blame for the collapse of the deal....especially since the "deal" in 2005 (123 agreement) is different from the deal today (Hyde act).

The failure of this deal is squarely on the heads of the American NP ayotollahs and the US state dept.

AniB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 00:34
Location: Rockies

Postby AniB » 16 Jul 2007 23:48

We might help create a dashing sound-byte for our imminent exit from Hyde bound B-J18

Something crisp. Say, 67 charcters or less. Else, 2 short sentences. An aphorism that generates sympathy, and leaves doors open for later. Rangudu and Ramana could umpire.

Something expressing "No nuclear waste".


No, it must'nt involve mangoes.[/u]

Manne
BRFite
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Jul 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Postby Manne » 16 Jul 2007 23:55

NRao,

Sorry I am rather late in responding but here goes:

GoI has been unable to sideline AK so far - you have accepted that. Scicom or otherwise. That is precisely my point. Bringing AK into the talks - fully knowing that entire Scicom is behind him and media is ready to cry foul - itself is a clear signal. And that the entire Scicom is behind him is something to think about, no? Don't know if you are aware but the same group of gents have had disagreements in the past. WoP gives some indication but there is more to it. Despite that they are all banding together. :twisted:

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 16 Jul 2007 23:59

Rye wrote:Manav wrote:
Is it true that it was India who initiated this nuke deal with the US?


This was stated many times by US sources back in 2003 (possibly perkovich), but do not have links for them, unfortunately.

Even if that is true, our reaction should be "so what?". That is not an indicator of "who needs the "deal" more" and certainly does not mean that the initiator of this deal is to blame for the collapse of the deal....especially since the "deal" in 2005 (123 agreement) is different from the deal today (Hyde act).

The failure of this deal is squarely on the heads of the American NP ayotollahs and the US state dept.


Oh...and you forgot to mention the role that the spineless and gutless crowd that MMS is a part of play and who insist on contradicting/ subverting the informed views (but vested interests - not that these interests would be necessarily contrary to the national interest) of the DAE folks.

Don't the Indian Armed Forces have any input in this? (unless of course their views are discussed in private and behind closed doors)

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 17 Jul 2007 00:10

Talking about Japan and its Nuclear program we have the following worldwide hazard because of the nature of the volcanic islands of Japan. Note that radioactive leak into Sea of Japan may reach the shores of western USA someday..

Strong quake rocks Japan, nuclear plant on Fire

A strong earthquake struck northwestern Japan on Monday, causing a fire and radioactive water leak at the world's largest nuclear plant. Flames and billows of black smoke poured from the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant — the world's largest in terms of power output capacity. The plant leaked about 315 gallons of water, said Katsuya Uchino, another Tokyo Electric official. Uchino said the water contained a tiny amount of radioactive material and is believed to have flushed into the Sea of Japan.

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

Postby vnadendla » 17 Jul 2007 01:10

AniB wrote:We might help create a dashing sound-byte for our imminent exit from Hyde bound B-J18

Something crisp. Say, 67 charcters or less. Else, 2 short sentences. An aphorism that generates sympathy, and leaves doors open for later. Rangudu and Ramana could umpire.

Something expressing "No nuclear waste".


No, it must'nt involve mangoes.[/u]


Cannot resist

.....Sour Mangoes......

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1422
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 17 Jul 2007 01:18

Do one of you gurus want to take a shot at what a sample 123 agreeable to India would read?

PS: This is more productive then the "bollywood dialogue" exit strategy.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 17 Jul 2007 03:24

Nuke deal to go to White House via Pentagon
The road to finalising the US-India civilian nuclear deal now appears to pass through the portals of the Pentagon.

There are strong indications to this effect, going by the unusual call that India's National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon are making on US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon on Monday evening, the first day of what's expected to be an intense three-day engagement on the nuclear deal.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 03:48

Rye wrote:Manav wrote:
Is it true that it was India who initiated this nuke deal with the US?


This was stated many times by US sources back in 2003 (possibly perkovich), but do not have links for them, unfortunately.

Even if that is true, our reaction should be "so what?". That is not an indicator of "who needs the "deal" more" and certainly does not mean that the initiator of this deal is to blame for the collapse of the deal....especially since the "deal" in 2005 (123 agreement) is different from the deal today (Hyde act).

The failure of this deal is squarely on the heads of the American NP ayotollahs and the US state dept.


It sure as hell matters to me who initiated this "N-Deal". What clever-by-half idiot thought this idea up? We had a plan, and we were proceeding methodically with it. Why screw that up for the sake of this stunt? We needlessly damaged our relationship with Iran for what looks to be nothing.

Most Western analysts agree that the price of negotiating India into the international nuclear structure will grow as time goes on, and India gets stronger. So why the hell would we see it in our interest to start this negotiation now, when we could be doing it 5-8 years down the road? How is it in our interest to negotiate sooner rather than later? The more economic momentum we build up in the lead-up to any negotiation, the more we'd be bringing to the table in any such negotiation.

So which naive mandarin in New Delhi went in for this stupid scheme? Was it intended as some partisan political stunt, to steal thunder away from BJP, etc? If it was, it's certainly been demoralizing for the country.

I strongly feel it's genuinely worth asking where the idea for this N-Deal came from, given how it plays to America's needs and to India's weaknesses. No really, which idiot came up with this idea?? What's his name? When did he think of it? Why??

Either Perky's playing psy-ops and trying to put the onus on us for something the Whitehouse thought up, or else some moron in India really needs to be fired.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Jul 2007 04:27

The seeds of the ideas existed during the NDA regime but never went beyond the two reactors India offered as the price for the deal. I have speculated on this board in the past that the man behind the scenes may have been Robert Blackwill, who convinced both sides to move forward and the result was the J18.

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 17 Jul 2007 04:29

India is (and has always) been denied the easy access to fossil energy sources that are critical for its development. This was done by acquiring and exercising complete control of the supplies and suppliers by forming cartels. In response to this cornering, India perused a strategy with basis on less competitive (owing to its immensely complex and technical nature) energy source of fissile kind. Increasingly India is finding this even more constraining.

Natural response to this kind of pushing to the wall is to deny the west that control or at the very least secure some kind of confidence in our energy supplies.

Iran, as one of the major supplier of energy sources, does not want to be in control or domination of West. It needs security mechanism to enforce its wish. Iran provides a nice candidate to collaborate with its proximity and synergy in goe-political goals with India in return of providing it the necessary security assurance to enforce its wishes.

It is a doable and mutually beneficial collaboration between India and Iran. Yes, India needs to publicly show its jewels and say that we are ready to fight for our national interest. India should have shown more willingness to exercise its hard power to challenge the dominance of west on conventional as well as fissile energy sources.

MMS forgot this basic logic and voted against Iran thinking that US would loosen the strings in our fissile material pursuit. The ease with which MMS conceded might have emboldened USA to forgo on its promise or expectations. In addition, two years ago Iraq might have been a factor in US’s calculations and was expecting Indian participation (read committing our soldiers as cannon fodder). It is wonder of wonders why MMS did not do anything material to alter this situation. This may have to do with non negotiable nature of this item from Left’s standpoint. With the way things are (or going to be in Pak) ,India (or Pakistan) in no way can commit themselves to supporting US in Iraq. Hence, there is no incentive for Bush to keep his words.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4390
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 17 Jul 2007 04:41

Was this posted earlier?

Nuclear good and bad news

[quote]Nuclear good and bad news
K.P. NAYAR

Washington, July 16: On the eve of what could be the final round of talks on operationalising the Indo-US nuclear deal through a so-called 123 Agreement, the good news is that reprocessing of spent fuel produced by any American reactors imported by India remains the only roadblock in the way of wrapping up the negotiations.The bad news is that the positions taken by New Delhi and Washington are so divergent that differences on this issue could still derail this week’s talks between Indian and US national security advisers M.K. Narayanan and Stephen Hadley.

According to highly placed sources in the Bush administration, if talks between Narayanan and Hadley break down on Wednesday, there is a strong possibility that US Vice-President Dick Cheney may step in and salvage the negotiations.

Cheney, who is often described as the “real Presidentâ€

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 04:54

The basic problem affecting us is the same one affecting the Russians: Atlanticist obstructionism/agenda.

The Jacksonians/Republicans are largely indifferent to it, that's why they won't go out on a limb to overcome it for us.

So since India and Russia both face the same thorn in their sides, the best answer is to let the current chips fall where they may, and instead turn towards each other for compensative cooperation.

Both India and Russia can benefit from this. Russians will gain a diplomatic lever/card to play from nuclear cooperation with India, just as they've gained one from nuclear cooperation with Iran. Since India can also keep Pakistan in check, Russia will also have the advantage of shoring up its soft underbelly which is exposed to the former CENTO countries. It was the jihadi knife thrusting northward that helped to bleed the former USSR to death. India will gain from its enhanced ability to keep Pak in check while also warding off China. India will also gain in overall international world clout and rise to world power status, due to the beneficial effects nuclearization will have on its overall economic and military clout.

Again, the reliable and dependable factor underpinning all of this is the Atlanticist ability to thwart/obstruct better US-India relations and better US-Russia relations. The Atlanticist influence will ensure that Russia is kept antagonized and away from close collaboration with the US, even as it denies us Indians a more fruitful relationship with the US by using things like the Hyde Act.

We can exploit the concurrent isolation of the Russians to persuade them to keep out of any GNEP style cartel. If Putin can suspend CFE, then this hold promise that he could be amenable to reviving N-cooperation with us, instead of with the containment-crazy Americans.

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

Postby Rye » 17 Jul 2007 05:06

It may not be all that simple.

X-posting from the India-Russia thread.

Kissinger-led U.S. group attends closed debate at Putin home
21:39 | 13/ 07/ 2007



NOVO-OGARYOVO (Moscow Region), July 13 (RIA Novosti) - A group of Russian and U.S. dignitaries gathered Friday at the presidential residence near Moscow behind closed doors in a bid to repair shattered ties.

The panel called "Russia-USA: A Look Into the Future," led by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, declined to comment on the first Moscow session, but said it was a successful beginning to a series of high-level meetings.

"We discussed many issues. Our goal was not to get media coverage, score public relations points, or press home any propaganda messages. We came here to solve problems," Primakov said.

"We agreed to hold the next meeting in mid-December in Washington, D.C.," where the panelists will meet with President George W. Bush, he added.

Kissinger thanked Putin for his hospitality and praised the Russian leader for his realistic and open approach.

"We appreciate the time that President Putin gave us and the frank manner in which he explained his point of view," he said.

When asked whether U.S. unilateral interventionism was on the agenda, Kissinger said that "nuclear proliferation" and "nuclear threats," rather than U.S. policies, are the biggest danger to world peace.

"I do not think that [U.S.] expansion is a problem of the period. The problem of the period is how to avoid nuclear conflict and in this case we believe that Russia and America should have common objectives."


Addressing the panel's first meeting, Putin thanked its participants for their quick response to the idea to set up such a high-level group, first aired during his April meeting with Kissinger and Primakov, and urged them to keep the debate as close to the ground as possible.

"[Your findings] should not be brought to our foreign ministries to gather dust there. They should be treated as something of practical use," he said.

He stressed that the idea was to set up a broad panel that would be open-minded when discussing issues.

"We cannot afford having a Russia-U.S. relationship that depends on the current political situation inside both our countries. We cannot allow our relationship to serve such narrow issues, as, for example, election campaigns in Russia or the U.S.," Putin said.

Apart from Kissinger, the U.S. team includes former Secretary of State George Schultz; former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; former Special Representative for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr.; former Senator Sam Nunn; and Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly.

Apart from Primakov, the Russian team includes Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov; former Ambassador to the U.S. Yuly Vorontsov; Deputy Board Chairman of UES Russia Leonid Drachevsky; UC Rusal Deputy Chief Executive Officer Alexander Livshits, and former Soviet Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mikhail Moiseyev.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070713/68933469.html

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 17 Jul 2007 06:29

Indo-US multi-thrusts
KP Nayar
Washington, July 15: When national security adviser M.K. Narayanan and his US counterpart sit down in the West Wing of the White House on Wednesday to discuss the nuclear deal, they will complement multiple layers of opaque negotiations held at various levels in the last fortnight.

The multiple negotiations represent one of the most ambitious endeavours in India’s diplomatic history: officials with a ringside view of these talks insist that they are without parallel in South Block for at least several decades.

Unannounced, Narayanan, for instance, will begin his official programme here not in the White House or in the state department, but at the Pentagon with a meeting on Monday with US defence secretary Robert Gates.

That meeting is designed to raise hopes here that the US may get the order from the Indian Air Force for 126 multi-role combat aircraft, the biggest military aviation deal in history.

As part of these multi-layered negotiations, Lt Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, the director of the Pentagon’s defence security cooperation agency, has been talking to Indian officials in Delhi in the last few days. His agency is the authority in charge of all US military sales and inter-agency procedures necessary here to complete such sales.

America’s military-industrial complex has been salivating over the aircraft deal for several years. It is so huge and has the potential to create so many jobs in America that it could be the single biggest factor overturning opposition in the US to Indian demands on the 123 Agreement to operationalise the nuclear deal.

It was not a coincidence that on Thursday, the cabinet committee on security cleared a $2.5 billion-plus deal with Israel to develop an anti-aircraft system and missiles. The system will be developed jointly by the Defence Research and Development Organisation and the Indian Air Force with help from Israel Aerospace Industries.

The deal has been hanging fire for at least a year, but its approval just before Narayanan’s trip to Washington is a signal to the powerful Jewish lobby in the US, whose support will be vital in seeing through the 123 Agreement in the US Congress.

The visit by Narayanan and his team is seen here as so crucial to Indo-US engagement that US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has discreetly postponed her travel to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, of all places, to Israel and Palestine.

Although the state department is not admitting this reason for doing so, Rice decided to stay back in Washington in order to be available to her under-secretary for political affairs, Nicholas Burns, for any major decision on the 123 Agreement.

Rice will now leave for Europe and Africa on Wednesday. That will give her time to be briefed by Burns after a round of technical discussions between Indian and US officials on Tuesday, to be followed by a dinner.

That dinner is expected to be the clincher in the Washington round of 123 talks since it will be the only event that day to be attended by India’s nuclear czar, Anil Kakodkar, according to officials who will be taking part in the negotiations.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 06:33

I dunno, all this multi-thrusting is not leading to any conception of anything here.

It may be fun for the diplomats to go through the motions for the hell of it, but in the end the expectant public wants something to bear fruit, or they'll feel disappointed.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 17 Jul 2007 06:39

ShauryaT wrote:The seeds of the ideas existed during the NDA regime but never went beyond the two reactors India offered as the price for the deal. I have speculated on this board in the past that the man behind the scenes may have been Robert Blackwill, who convinced both sides to move forward and the result was the J18.

Here is something that supports the above:
[url=http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/05aziz.htm]Bush's commitment to India runs deep: Blackwill
[/url]
Tellis said, "It is indeed fitting that he (Blackwill) is the first recipient of the Bridging Nations Foundation's Bridge Builder Award."

"It one were to invite Aristotle to address this audience, he would probably have said that Robert Blackwill is the 'efficient cause' of the transformation of US-India relations."

Tellis mused that 'for a more pedestrian mind like myself, I have to be content with simply saying that he was the father of the new US-India global partnership'.

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

Postby NRao » 17 Jul 2007 06:49

The deal has been hanging fire for at least a year, but its approval just before Narayanan’s trip to Washington is a signal to the powerful Jewish lobby in the US, whose support will be vital in seeing through the 123 Agreement in the US Congress.


JEM,

Political capitaaaal.

This has been a huge headache.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 17 Jul 2007 07:25

Satya_anveshi wrote:India is (and has always) been denied the easy access to fossil energy sources that are critical for its development. This was done by acquiring and exercising complete control of the supplies and suppliers by forming cartels. In response to this cornering, India perused a strategy with basis on less competitive (owing to its immensely complex and technical nature) energy source of fissile kind. Increasingly India is finding this even more constraining.

Natural response to this kind of pushing to the wall is to deny the west that control or at the very least secure some kind of confidence in our energy supplies.

Iran, as one of the major supplier of energy sources, does not want to be in control or domination of West. It needs security mechanism to enforce its wish. Iran provides a nice candidate to collaborate with its proximity and synergy in goe-political goals with India in return of providing it the necessary security assurance to enforce its wishes.

It is a doable and mutually beneficial collaboration between India and Iran. Yes, India needs to publicly show its jewels and say that we are ready to fight for our national interest. India should have shown more willingness to exercise its hard power to challenge the dominance of west on conventional as well as fissile energy sources.

MMS forgot this basic logic and voted against Iran thinking that US would loosen the strings in our fissile material pursuit. The ease with which MMS conceded might have emboldened USA to forgo on its promise or expectations. In addition, two years ago Iraq might have been a factor in US’s calculations and was expecting Indian participation (read committing our soldiers as cannon fodder). It is wonder of wonders why MMS did not do anything material to alter this situation. This may have to do with non negotiable nature of this item from Left’s standpoint. With the way things are (or going to be in Pak) ,India (or Pakistan) in no way can commit themselves to supporting US in Iraq. Hence, there is no incentive for Bush to keep his words.


What India needs to do is Mediate between Iran and Israel over the crisis, and in the same time woo Iran for its resources.

Iran and Israel dont have any issues to begin with, India needs to pursue Iran that stop the nuke wepaons programme and opt for energy deal.

That way Iran will be safeguarding itself in international diplomatic circle, then it can pursue aggressive geopolitical goals.

A stable and shinning Iran is not in Arabs interest, Arabs are in US interest thus it is not much in US interest either.

However a good Iran can serve Israel and India both as none has any hostility over another bar the weapons programme.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 08:00

Iran can only be a viable negotiating partner if they're democratic. Any autocratic govt is going to be belligerent, paranoid, and politically dependent upon an external bogeyman. Look at Pak.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50387
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2007 08:01

If the deal does not go through India has to take some extreme measures at the risk of being considered a recalcitrant to ensure security for itself in the near to medium term.

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

Postby NRao » 17 Jul 2007 08:14

recalcitrant


I had to look up the meaning of that word!!!!!

Ouch.

However, it is up to India and indianS. IF we as a nation keep indulging in Big-Bism, like we have been doing so far, then yes.

Else, we can build a few muscles and push anyone around, even if they as much as prototype us. India needs to get out of the analysis and research phase and start implementing.

I think selling those LCH(?)s to Burma is a very good idea.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50387
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2007 08:46

NRao, Supplying helicopters to Burma or Myanmar wont make you a recalcitrant! Its some thing more.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 17 Jul 2007 08:58

The sucess of the ABM, the unveiling of Sagarika, the impending launch of the ATV and the development of other weapon systems etc are all steps in an assertive direction for India.

India would get really 'recalcitrant' when its Agni3+/Surya morphs into an MIRVwith a 12k km range, capable of taking out, foolproof any city on Earth within an hour.

JMTs etc.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 09:10

Putin is being called recalcitrant -- or whatever convenient synonym at hand -- and so India can and ought to move more towards Russia if it can't get a good bargain in Washington.

The N-issue is a big thing, and generations of Indians will be benefiting or suffering from it in the future, because of its importance.

I would prefer that the BJP sign any N-Deal, and not the rentable Congress.
Only Nixon can go to China. (Meanwhile, Rajnath is looking as bland as Gerald Ford)

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 17 Jul 2007 09:16

Self deleted - off topic.
Last edited by Satya_anveshi on 17 Jul 2007 09:54, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Vivek K » 17 Jul 2007 09:19

Satya, nice one! :D

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 09:24

I don't see why nationlists would sell out the national interest more quickly than some dynastic party surviving on graft that doesn't even have any ideological platform anymore.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6938
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 17 Jul 2007 09:28

I said this once and here it is again. BJP would have sold out long before any congress govt would. The whole hindutva movement was a LOTUS revolution similar to Orange revolution of Ukrain and Cedar revolution of Lebanon. Guess who fed the Jan Sangh et el during Indira years and where will their loyalties be. We are in a difficult situation.


BS

Keep your unsubstantiated rumors to yourself. India is in its strategic position today because of the NDA and more specifically because of POK-II. No Kangressi blow-hards had the balls to do it. It took 6-years to begin clean up of the mess of 50+ years. And please don't get me started on who actually got the economy rolling on 8%+ points of GDP growth.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 09:38

I totally agree. Conservatives build up the economy and security at the expense of popularity, and then liberals come back using populism, and squander the economic and security gains. That's the story of the world.

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 17 Jul 2007 09:39

del
Last edited by Satya_anveshi on 17 Jul 2007 09:53, edited 1 time in total.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 17 Jul 2007 09:49

One last one ( this one may make you happy) and no more on this from me. Some of my friends (CEO's and likes in India) knew that MMS will be PM even before the elections and this was not based on astrology.


Please enlighten us. Based on the number of seats congress won, it was not very clear after election whether it will form government. This forum spend lot of time analysing tamasha of firang being PM of India and role President played in preventing it i.e. even when it became clear that congress will form government it was Sonia everyone discussing not Manmohan who came as substitute. Your statement is loaded. Please don't run away by just hurling accusations. Lot of Indian business world actually was stunned by NDA defeat. Don't know which CEOs you were listening. Moderators please remove this post if inappropriate.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests