India - Nuclear News and Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2007 02:26

A lot of monazite sand was exported to US in the early fifties. Then it got stopped after AEC was formed.

There was large discussion between Churchill and Stalin about the future of Kerala sands. Please refer to Churchill's World War II which you should get in any good library.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 20 Jul 2007 02:35

There was a Venn diagram posted by Gerard many moons ago that showed that there was a lot of inter-breeding between the nuclear programs of the P-5 and India's program did not intersect with any of the other programs.

There was another article posted by Gerard which indicated that the nuclear programs of the P5 in the civilian arena is 1-2 decades behind India. Any competitor of India would be interested in reducing the tech gap, one would think.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 20 Jul 2007 02:56

Arun_S wrote: Pls stick to the thread topic. Other things can be discussed elsewhere. And pls do not ask loaded question to imply that Alok started/launched Islamism or EvanJihadi discussion.

Please see my response here

bala · Post by **bala** » 20 Jul 2007 03:22

More careful word smithing and Nuances.. Definitely more Chai Biskoot meetings..

India, US make progress in nuke deal talks: Official

"There is goodwill here, we have made progress, we are very hopeful that we can hammer out the remaining differences in the next coming days and weeks," Tom Casey, the Deputy Spokesman told reporters here on Thursday. "I would be very surprised if you saw someone stand up and say, Eureka! we have an agreement," he added. " I wasn't given the impression that you should look for an announcement today or some kind of a definitive conclusion to this. But we have made good progress. We are hopeful we can resolve in the not too distant future" Casey noted.

He said US has expressed its commitment and desire to reach an agreement "and we're sure that the Indian government wants to reach an agreement. The question is a matter of when and the timing of it".

Meanwhile, an unnamed senior administration has been cited in a media report that India and the US have "broken the logjam" and that Washington is "very optimistic" that a deal could be almost done by today.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 20 Jul 2007 04:18

Only Alok_N can answer that most accurately, let us get him back to BR Forum.

I can try answer it but I am a juvenile compared to Guru Alok_N (Oh BTW I spoke with him just now he is doing very well and happy):

ShibaPJ wrote:
We're not talking small peanuts here. India staying out of the GNEP tent automatically constrains the entire future profit stream to be had by a new energy cartel.
GNEP is based on the premise of once-thru processing for the client states and Unkil is trying to rope in Russia (and ultimately P5) to complete the loop. India with it's Th-based programe presents the most latent threat to this cartel.

Arun_S,
As usual, very high quality stuff, you hit it right on the nail. I have some basic, layman Qs. Can you please clarify?

1. How do you process commercial grade N-fuel directly in AHWR? I thought, that would go to the 1st stage PHWRs etc; the output of FBRs would be reprocessed and the cleaned fuel then would go to AHWR.

1. AHWR requires ~3.5% enriched Pu or U fuel as driver. This is true for both initial startup or regularoperation when reprocessing will recover unused fuel enrichment as well as recover unused U233 from instue Thorium buring.
2. Thorium burning is in principle neutron deficit reaction, thus will always need driver fissile fuel to maintain equlibrium.
3. Indian 3 stage plan calls for using 2'nd stage FBR to provide for neutron deficit of Thorium AHWR. Also FBR play a role to burn few problematic actinides from AHWR spent fuel. Thus as long as cheap fissile material is available from import, one does not have to heavily rely on FBR for sustaining fuel. However fewer FBR would still be needed
4. in th eoverall scheme 1st stage PHWR are inefficient fuel burners and only required to initially charge the FBR & AHWR

2. AHWRs would be civ reactors and under IAEA safeguards. How do you stop international supervision/ spying in that case? or Is US asking for supervision on how FBR o/p is reprocessed?

IAEA safeguards only require that fissile material is not used for non-civil applications, largely that means human/sensors to ensure audit of all fissile material going in and out for the facility. a.k.a santry duty on facility gates. IAEA safeguards does not mandate involvement in designing, manufacture of the reactor. At best during reactor operation a periodic visit to just observe with naked eyes from far off distance the operation or construction of new facilities.

As far as reprocessing (spent fuel from LWR, AHWR etc..) is considered they have no business except do the bean counting of neutrons entering and leaving the facility.

Yes from what I read what US is asking is right to :
1. come inside (industrial espionage) and
2. govern and be part of the decision on operation of the reprocessing plant (what kind element/isotope separation and how much is allowed, what to store , where to store, how long to store; allowing them to collect empirical data and use it in energy market trading). I call that modern day thuggery, IP bootlegging and cheating.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 20 Jul 2007 04:57

Amber G. wrote:
Is there a technical reason for India NOT to export her thorium based reactors (I am not looking for any political related issues)?
FWIW: IMO obvious answer is where to? Most (virtually all) reactors are not based on Thorium, and unlike India, there aren't too many places where there is plenty of Thorium (and not enough available/cheaper Uranium).

As for Alok_N, I certainly miss him.

Boss 6 years ago Natural uranium (yellowCake) was $7/lb, last year was $65/lb and now $130/lb, target price for 2008 is $255/lb.. The world is coming to grips with the fact that worlds Uranium will also soon finish in IIRC 150 years with current style single pass fuel cycle.

Thorium is 3 times more abundant than Uranium and yes India is the King in that metal.

Thorium in situ breeding is known as the easy and logical way to increase the efficiency of consuming the fissile U235 and also earning 75% of energy from thorium, thus stretching the Uranium ore availability by few times.

But being a religious zelot NPA emperor, "Reprocessing" based Thorium use is not Kosher idea, because God said that nuclear weapons is sole prerogative of responsible and chosen white and yellow people, and the rest of the world has to bow to their exclusive superiority.

So instead of taking the cheap and know way to next generation fission reactor, thou shall plough $100 billion dollar to build Fusion powered reactor, and wait 100 years to be make the first commercial fusion power plant.

Oh God forgot to mention only the entrenched powers will be able to make and sell to the 3rd world the fusion power plant that takes 20 square Km land area. And its so huge that no terrorist or Iraqi Saddam Hussain can afford to own.

Oh also forgot to mention that the unwashed NPT signatories can still make fissile material from fusion power plants by irradiating natural uranium/thorium. Back to square ONE.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 20 Jul 2007 05:18

Indiaâ€™s n-fuel storage gets US OK
Pranab Dhal Samanta
Posted online: Friday, July 20, 2007 at 0000 hrs

Talks: Both sides work on future pact on reprocessing; Indian team meets Cheney
[quote]
NEW DELHI, JULY 19: India and the US have moved closer on firming up their civil nuclear bilateral cooperation agreement with Washington accepting Indiaâ€™s proposal for a dedicated facility to store spent fuel and coming up with â€œforward-looking suggestionsâ€

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2007 05:32

Amber G. wrote:
Is there a technical reason for India NOT to export her thorium based reactors (I am not looking for any political related issues)?
FWIW: IMO obvious answer is where to? Most (virtually all) reactors are not based on Thorium, and unlike India, there aren't too many places where there is plenty of Thorium (and not enough available/cheaper Uranium).

As for Alok_N, I certainly miss him.

Dunno. BD, Burma, Pakistan, Nepal. Build Thorium reactors in India and sell electricity in the 'hood to start? Cheap electricity.

Then I am told SA and Brazil have Uranium. Why not trade Thorium techs for Uranium legally and under tight security - more than what IAEA proposes.

Then how about African countries? Iran (I just heard on NPR that in some 15 years - at today's rate - Iran may not be able to export oil!!!!! This from Iranians!!!! Iran, today, exports oil and imports gasoline, which is subsidised. It costs Iran $4-5 Billion a year to so. In 15 years they expect it to match what they earn from oil.).

Here are my reasons:
1) The intersection of Thorium techs maturing as a commercial alternative and the need for more energy is too compelling
2) Brazil has come out of its shell - they are proposing building nuclear subs
3) A need to do it?
4) Briton colonised India for cotton. Do not want India colonised for nuclear capability

Just some random thoughts

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 20 Jul 2007 05:39

Maybe Uranium prices are exponentially rising because countries like the US (and the G-8 countries) want to keep the Uranium out of bounds to countries like India by keep prices of nuclear fuel artificially high. So the P-5 are cooperating in achieving this? Certainly makes sense -- since they probably agree or disagree on a issue-by-issue basis, they will certainly agree on maintaining a monopoly on nuclear fuel. This will also warm the cockles of the NPA, who exist to raise such barriers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2007 05:40

India wants to avoid a situation where any statement by the Prime Minister to Parliament contradicts what the Bush administration may convey to the US Congress.

That is strange. Hope it is DDM. MMS must keep J18 in sight and not what Bush has to say to his Congress. Or is MMS confusing the US Congress for Indian Congress and fears retaliation from Madam?

That article does not amount to anything. Words have been moved but does not meet AKs requirements. It should fail in tech talks. Any ambiguity will only led to a Indo-US confrontation in the future.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2007 05:40

What is this logic of the future discussion that needs to arise only after India has accumulated enough spent fuel? deny/allow at a future date. This is the cr@p of all that is @mrikhanism.

They just can't agree to it since the hyde act will just put those nodding senators to be under noose of NPA gang.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2007 05:46

SaiK,

They expect NRIs and US corps to foot that bill.

From Aks PoV, that is not acceptable since it is risk to Indian strategic interests.

AK wants total control over Indian strategic interests (by India that is).

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 20 Jul 2007 06:42

Uranium mining projects in India (long list)

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2007 07:16

NRao wrote:
India wants to avoid a situation where any statement by the Prime Minister to Parliament contradicts what the Bush administration may convey to the US Congress.
That is strange. Hope it is DDM. MMS must keep J18 in sight and not what Bush has to say to his Congress. Or is MMS confusing the US Congress for Indian Congress and fears retaliation from Madam?

You have caught it right.
It looks like there is already an agreement within the inner circle.
They want to make sure that they can sell it to the respective constituencies.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Jul 2007 07:20

Now, now, India is really getting shamefully desparate. Naraynan and Menon are getting ready to bend down on their knees before Dicky for a dog bone they can take back home.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 20 Jul 2007 07:32

You have caught it right.
It looks like there is already an agreement within the inner circle.
They want to make sure that they can sell it to the respective constituencies.

My fears coming to light, seems like. Its over then, for our energy independence and hence our future security.

At least with some other PMs we had, we knew pressure and threats must've been used to elicit this outcome.

The Scicom has been valiant and principled and awesome. My heartfelt Salutes.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 20 Jul 2007 07:54

Did some bodysay the mallu foreign affairs will not budge to external affairs?

Naryanan and Menon well
enda parandyam?

Any day our N cube would get us great deal

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2007 07:54

Mr. Halliburton
by Jehan Mir on Jul 20, 2007 06:17 AM | Hide replies

Cheney,Mr.Helliburton is dying to attack Iran and needs a India as a springboard.

Cheney would offer his butt let alone any concessions on the N-deal to reach an agreement with India.

Cheney has nothing to worry about.He has no family members serving in the military.Its the third world within USA,serving in the military which would take the brunt of war causalties and deaths and their poor families would quietly suffer unspeakable grief and hardships.

India,you are on the right track.Keep pushing,you will get all what you want and more

USA needs this N-deal more than you do.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2007 08:14

Interesting thing is that in a bilateral deal between US and India US wants the IAEA an outsider to do the inspections. What gives?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 20 Jul 2007 08:14

Tilak wrote:Indiaâ€™s n-fuel storage gets US OK
Pranab Dhal Samanta

In fact, it was on this count that the Menon-Burns talks held here in early June failed to achieve a breakthrough. Washington had indicated that it was ready to allow India reprocess the spent fuel but interpreted it as something that would be discussed in the future when the need arises once India would have stored enough spent fuel on the civilian side to reprocess. India, on the other hand, read it as permanent consent. On the last day of talks, this gap over interpretation proved a difficult one to bridge.

"discussed in future"?????

Uh-oh, sounds like Oslo Peace Process mentality.
"Let's do the peace agreement first, and then worry about drawing maps later"
What a fake line.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2007 08:16

Kick the can?

Why no the bucket?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 20 Jul 2007 08:18

Now its upto Left BJP Amma Jaya and company to take to streets aagisnt the deal. No wonder SG eased out Kalam saab out of his chair...
So as not give Kalam saab any chance to put national interests

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2007 08:45

ramana wrote:Interesting thing is that in a bilateral deal between US and India US wants the IAEA an outsider to do the inspections. What gives?

Could this be a secret understanding between US and NSG to make this deal to yield like a NPT on India.

This is one scenario-
The entire process started in 2004 with a media exposure to make sure that other P5 countries or NSG are not in the process of negotiation.
India was led into this negotiation including J18 like a 'Trueman Show'
The main points of the deal may have already done even before J18.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2007 09:02

The reaction of scicom from the beginning gives us clues how this deal navigated.

When they declared that NPT was better then this deal it showed that US wanted to force a pseudo deal which in reality was a NPT like deal.
The inner circle wanted it that way since many of the constituencies are ex-disarmament groups.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 20 Jul 2007 09:06

So on testing the agreement seems to be, " Dont ask, dont tell", like the policy relating to gays in the US military.

And on reprocessing rights, the 123 agreement will give an in principle OK but with terms and conditions agreed to for a future reprocessing agreement - you could call that future agreement "son of 123 agreement". This way, the Indian constituency will be told that a reprocessing OK has been obtained and the US congress will be told that while an inprinciple OK has been given, the terms and conditions agreed to will be formalized only in the "son of 123 agreement". Hence there is no need to revisit the Hyde Act at this stage. Very clever!! Now what happens when the "son of 123 agreement" has to be approved by the US Congress? Will Congress demand a "son of Hyde Act" as well?

PS: I hope that India has obtained off the formal record USG undertakings that passing the "son of Hyde Act" will be the joint responsbility between whatever US administration is in power then and GOI. The NRI and various business lobbies will have to mount another Herculean effort down the road. Have to agree with the late lamented Valkan though. This is true salami slicing. With the passage of the 123 agreement, a new highwater mark will have been established.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2007 09:10

India wants to avoid a situation where any statement by the Prime Minister to Parliament contradicts what the Bush administration may convey to the US Congress.

On more thought, this seems to be a honest statement. MMS did make such a mistake - the last time he made a statement in Parliament. IF he had not made that statement, the Hyde Act would stand.

And, Dr. Rice, Burns and Dr. Tellis would not have to tell us that they cannot change the Hyde Act.

On a side note, I hope AK did not forget to bring water from the Ganga, Complan and the like. Just better for health.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 20 Jul 2007 09:27

who is salami slicing whom ? our interests are being compromised at each stage. Does it look like we will end up nuke nood ?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 20 Jul 2007 09:35

ramdas wrote:who is salami slicing whom ? our interests are being compromised at each stage. Does it look like we will end up nuke nood ?

Instead of a one liner, why dont you list down the specifics of the 123 agreement that you do not agree with and what you regard as compromises. If you can, be very specific.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 20 Jul 2007 09:49

1. Not ensuring explicitly that fuel supplies to imported reactors will continue even in the event of a nuclear test is bad enough. ny loophole will only increase the cost of a nuclear test to India given that the "international community " will interpret it against our interest.

2. Any postponing permission for reprocessing to a future agreement is an unacceptable compromise. Full reprocessing permission without international supervision for imported fuel is a must. That we already agreed to a dedicated safeguarded facility for this purpose is a compromise, though acceptable if a fresh facility for this purpose is set up.

3. Even in J18, agreeing to work towards a FMCT is unacceptable - unless work towards only means talking endlessly without committing to it.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 20 Jul 2007 09:49

Anxiety seems to be building and BP increasing..any comments from those who were vehemently pro deal. Are they still of the view that this deal is best thing to happen since idly/sambar for India?

For that matter its been sometime since we heard from our esteemed humble commentator.

Need some tomato soup for the soul...

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 20 Jul 2007 10:03

NRao,

Firstly as an aside, why no response to my first post? Just curious. Secondly, none of your three reasons make sense:

I see more NRIs, etc parroting what Burns, Inc has been saying

NRIs are not Indian citizens. They are not expected to have India's interests in mind. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Nothing to directly address the Indian strategic position. Here two observations: Scicom is clearly STILL uncomfortable after two years, their position has not changed. Burns position (and now Tellis too) has not changed - these were the guys who authored the Hyde Act. But GoI position has changed to accommodate the US and the US has not budged so far

India's strategic concerns are amply addressed by the GoI's publicly stated red lines on what is and is not acceptable to India. You are raising a red herring here. The scientific community has expressed reservations about what the Americans keep talking about and rightly so. Where have they raised reservations about something that the GoI has agreed to? I am looking for something verifiable that the the GoI has agreed to that the scientific community are opposed to and not vague rumors. And The GoI has not budged from its position either. The only thing that comes close is the separate reprocessing plant.

Everyone making the argument that time is running out is looking after their own $$ end. None of these guys care nor are able to appreciate the strategic position (I would love to see Bush, Burns, Rice, Tellis, US-India Business Council, Swadesh Chatterjee and the US Congress plunk down at least $ 100 Billion from their funds as a safeguard)

All the people claiming that the time is running out and so the deal needs to be made soon are on the American side. Did you see anyone from the GoI side make such claims? No.

IF India and MMS wants energy and a humming 10% economy then give up your strategic nuclear efforts - as the Hyde Act states, or else ....

Where has the GoI agreed to the Hyde act being the guiding documents for the nuclear deal? You are raising another red herring here. J18/M2 is the guiding document and it remains so.

I would like to hear what Tellis has to officially state on India's strategic matters. Does he have an open, on-the-recod, frank statement?

As far as Tellis' opinion on the effect of this nuclear deal on the strategic aspect of Indo-US relations, let me reproduce something that I have written before: "The nuclear part of the nuclear deal happens to be incidental. This deal was an exercise in trust building, a confidence building measure of sorts. There exists a gigantic brick wall of mistrust in American intentions within the national security establishment in Delhi and this deal was a key step in trying to overcome this mistrust. It was a way for the Americans to demonstrate that they were serious when they talked about significantly improving their relations with us and that we could trust them on this. This was a way for the Americans to deposit political capital with us for when we worked with them on common interests as a part of the improved Indo-US relations that they wanted. I know I am bringing up the much maligned trust word again but believe me it is central to this whole exercise."

Tellis will probably agree with most of that. How do I know? I have listened to him speak and have talked to him in person once on the subject of the nuclear deal.

And one last thing, what exactly is MMS glossing over?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 20 Jul 2007 10:13

Sparsh wrote:NRao,

Firstly as an aside, why no response to my first post? Just curious. Secondly, none of your three reasons make sense:

I see more NRIs, etc parroting what Burns, Inc has been saying
NRIs are not Indian citizens. They are not expected to have India's interests in mind. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[

I'm an NRI, but I agree with you.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 20 Jul 2007 10:28

End of the road? - 6
[quote]A weak President Bush cannot meet Indian demands, says N.V.Subramanian.

18 July 2007: The key to successful EURATOM and Chinese nuclear negotiations with the US was that they demanded and got equal terms. At one point of the sensitive and touchy US negotiations with EURATOM, for example, EURATOM officials described the United States as a â€œjunior partnerâ€

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 20 Jul 2007 10:28

NRao,

One more thing about the separate reprocessing plant. I don't see how that is a compromise of any sort on anything. The reprocessing that would have taken place under campaign safeguards in existing plants before will just take place in a different dedicated plant now. And that is actually good. I don't trust the IAEA inspectors to not leave behind covert monitoring devices when they leave the reprocessing plants that we will afterwards use for the military side of things.

Then there is the matter of the cost of building and operating a separate reprocessing plant. I say we charge a "reprocessing fee" upfront on foreign fuel in order to pay for all of that. If they do not want to pay that then they should cart away spent fuel to do whatever they want to do with it.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 20 Jul 2007 10:31

Sparsh wrote:Where has the GoI agreed to the Hyde act being the guiding documents for the nuclear deal? You are raising another red herring here. J18/M2 is the guiding document and it remains so.

Per this report from TOI

"The talks will continue today (Wednesday) and tomorrow (Thursday)" one official said, declining to even confirm if there was any progress after Tuesday's parleys. Acknowledging that there were several rounds of talks and discussions on Tuesday, the official said "one round feeds into another."

A second official said it was difficult to characterise the negotiations, and added, "we are still grappling with some difficult issues."

Taken together, the comments suggested little forward movement. India is said to have proposed setting up a dedicated reprocessing facility under safeguards to overcome US reservations about the use of its nuclear fuel, and discussions appear to have centered round this, with ideas and clarifications on how to incorporate this into the 123 Agreement.

The one thing both sides agree on is that it is impractical to rewrite or revisit Congress' Hyde Act which essentially put a spanner in the Bush-Singh July 18 agreement.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Jul 2007 10:31

Need some tomato soup for the soul...

AK will be fine, no need for Ganga jal. America does not need another boot permanently lodged up its ass at this juncture.

If we gave our team some credit, it could be that India is politely but methodically backing the yanks to the wall from where they will have to either say "we are bh**ch**s and want to cut you out of your FBR program and take it for ourselves" or they will have to bring us into the tent as one of the most useful occupants or they will have to behave as if this all never happened.

I think Team India has shown a lot of kickass capability with this dedicated repocessing plant idea. The Americans are looking bad and for all their bluster, know that India is fully in the drivers seat, willing to go home empty handed and doesn't give a rat's ass how Congress feels about the whole thing. So far, Congress has been told to go jump in the lake in so many words. Unkil also knows that he will not get another chance to come inside India's tent for a very, very long time so this is more of a make or break for him. It is very plausible that they will find a face saving way to untie their own stupid, over-clever knots. India needs to be prepared to hand that face-saver to them at short notice. Perhaps the F35 deal or the mother of all reactor contracts or both. In the real world, that's called win-win--the only kind of deal that doesn't hurt both parties in the long run.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 20 Jul 2007 10:49

Arun,

In my view, the reprocessing issue in the nuclear deal is important to us from the perspective of waste storage and management. I do not think the DAE is going to put any FBRs and AHWRs and the associated reprocessing plants on the civilian side in the foreseeable future. AK in one of his interviews was very non-committal about having civilian FBRs in the future. He did not rule them out but other than that nothing concrete. I think this would be a prudent thing to do even with whatever IP protection measures that are incorporated into the reactors and reprocessing plants as well as the safeguards agreements for them. There is simply nothing that can make me trust the presence of an IAEA inspector near the FBRs and AHWRs.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 20 Jul 2007 11:11

Satya,

Even I think rewriting the Hyde act is not something that can realistically happen. So what? That is entirely America's problem. Where in that ToI article did you find a GoI official saying that the Hyde act was acceptable or that the nuclear deal is going to be along the lines of the Hyde act?

The agreement has to be on the lines of J18/M2 and if that does not fit in with the Hyde act then that is not our problem. If the American Congress has a problem with it then they are free to vote against the agreement when it comes up.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 20 Jul 2007 11:51

It is make or break time for the talks and while so far both sides were willing to take on issues where things could be agreed upon the talks were able to resolve and keeping moving ahead.

There were contentious issues that were identified right at the outset. More as a result of the first attempt when NDA was in charge. At that time the respective governments of both sides got a clear idea of the red lines.

The next attempt resulted in the fashioning of the end vision as captured in j18 and PM's commitment to the Parliament. The negotiating teams had also agreed on the sequence as well as the order of topics that were to be negotiated. The Indian side has delivered on both. The Indian has delivered on the commitments made under the J18 principles.

The USG has deviated both on the sequence as well been unable to deliver on some of the end vision objectives. They are asking for India to give some more. Let us not underestimate the Indian team. They are not in there to do the deal at any cost. Even if they do, they cannot build consensus support on it.

Inconvenient issues can no longer be postponed by the USG and it will have to deliver or the deal is off. That is the reason for the psyops in the media and the endless articles on Indian obduracy.

We need this deal. Let us not forget that. For various reasons. But not at any cost. There are countries and lobbies working against the deal precisely because they have understood the true significance. If the USG is not able to bring itself around to the deal then these lobbies and countries will definitely be pleased. The ball is the USG's court.

An aside:

There are many here, including stalwarts who are calling for the lifting ot the ban on Alok_N. I am not going to be one of them. I readily acknowledge his deep knowledge and contributions on the subject. However, he was indulging in personal attacks and I too was subject to that. He was mocking others and belittling others capacity to understand.

I am no guru, admin or voluminous postor here to warrant any special mention, but I have been aroung BRF ever since its inception. I have never indulged in anything remotely objectionable.

When I was subject to personal attacks by him, it was the only time I felt deeply offended on BRF and asked him to stop. When shiv advised us both to refrain, I felt insulted to be bracketed at his level and even stopped posting for a while voluntarily.

IIRC Alok_N himself asked to be banned. His intolerance of others views and indulgence of personal attacks got him banned. I have no problems if the admins decide to allow him back but let me remain in the minority of those who will not support in lifting the ban until Alok_N decides to correct himself. If he does, I too will join in welcoming him.

As one who has had an unpleasant experience with the gentleman, I thought I will openly state it here for whatever it is worth.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2007 13:04

Well, Alok_N is Alok_N. If he went off a cliff, probably the temp where he was was not right. Chat sites are not the best medium to make a conversation. Things are different when one meets in person. (BTW, even IF he comes back - like I said yesterday - he is too far behind on this topic. He has moved from nukes to black matter.

so let it slide and nature take its course.)