Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 22 Jul 2007

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

Postby Rye » 24 Jul 2007 18:51

Prabu, what is the source for your claim that AK is less than happy?

Even if he is toeing the line of the current govt. due to political pressure, the retired heads of the DAE have no reason to buckle under such pressure, and they seem to be satisfied with the deal.

It would be interesting to know the source of such disinformation.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38626

Postby Prabu » 24 Jul 2007 19:05

Rye,

[quote]Looming large over the talks was the presence of India's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman Anil Kakodkar. Although Kakodkar did not participate in the negotiations, he was continually consulted to ensure that his concerns about the deal are met. Kakodkar is known to be less than happy with the deal, and has orchestrated opposition to it through his former colleagues. [/quote]
[/url]

from

INDIA/US: Nuke Deal - Breakthrough or Bad Bargain?
By Praful Bidwai

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38626

It is already posted here in BR. If all scientists agree & happy 100 %, I will be one of the Proud Indian to be happy too ! Please let me be wrong for the sake of our country !

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

Re: Nuke deal

Postby svinayak » 24 Jul 2007 19:05

Prabu wrote: he was laughing and telling this " THE US DOES NOT CARE FOR ANY BODY IN THIS WORLD, BUT ITS OWN INTERESTS. US WANTS INDIAN SOLDIERS TO FIGHT ITS WAR, CHEAPLY "


He is right to laugh and he is correct.
There is a bigger game plan than the people in GOI know about in the deal. Even the talk of India being a partner of US in this deal is mostly wishful thinking.
The key thing is the manner in which the deal was finalised. All the terms which were considered required to close the deal could have been discussed 6 mths ago. They were on the table and could have been decided earlier.
US could have agreed to the deal long before.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 24 Jul 2007 19:17

Acharya, All.

The US has always been playing a bigger game - that is a generic statement. Because they have more committments around the world.

But you have to be more specific than that. You have to say what are the particular golas that it wanted to achieve in this deal.

My take is that this deal is actually a replacement for the NPT. Everybody realizes that the NPT is dead, and the repercussions of this deal will be felt throughout the global nuclear diplomacy for decades to come. The NPT was an anti-India treaty. The hard work and dedication of our scientists has forced the hyper power to come to terms with reality that they don't control India's scientific power.

This deal is merely an acknowledgement of this fact. No more, no less. My only concern is how much did we give away, if at all.

India has decided, willy nilly, to play at least a little with the US. How we interact with the rest of the world on this field will decide the contours of the global nuclear regiume for the next couple of generations. I just hope we have enough space to quit the deal if necessary, that's all.


Prabu wrote:US WANTS INDIAN SOLDIERS TO FIGHT ITS WAR
That has been the western pipedream since a long time. They wanted our troops in Iraq, even Afghanistan.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 24 Jul 2007 19:18

Acharya,
Can you please shade more light on this bigger game plan? Most people, including me think this is to do with ME and approaching deadlines for neocons. But why/ how would India agree to US designs there? Any kind of destabilization/ oil price spikes would hit US/ Indian economies alike.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2007 19:35

WRT AK not being as happy, IMHO, Prabhu is right. AK has ALWAYS stated "all or nothing". He was never in favor of negotiating. Now with this stand-alone reporc plant, things must be dicey.

The battle is within the Indian deligation - still there.

There is the distinct possibility that the GoI was willing to look at a bigger picture and that is what has happened. The 123 is only a re-worded Hyde Act - with a toe hold for GNEP.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 24 Jul 2007 19:41

Acharya, I hope you will leave the Knights Templar out of the explanation :)

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 24 Jul 2007 19:44

There is never a free lunch more so with uncle.

I am still skeptical of this whole deal.

One thing for sure Bush want MMS to have lunch at this ranch and for photo op and relevancce to his country while better known dick runs the show,

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

Re: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38626

Postby Rye » 24 Jul 2007 20:00

INDIA/US: Nuke Deal - Breakthrough or Bad Bargain?
By Praful Bidwai

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38626

It is already posted here in BR. If all scientists agree & happy 100 %, I will be one of the Proud Indian to be happy too ! Please let me be wrong for the sake of our country !


Your first mistake is to consider this lying dipwad Profool Bidwai as a "credible source" --- he is a consummate liar and will sell himself to the highest bidder.

Do you have any other sources for this revelation? All other sources indicate that AK and the former DAE heads are not unhappy with the deal.

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jul 2007 20:01

ShibaPJ wrote:Acharya,
Can you please shade more light on this bigger game plan? Most people, including me think this is to do with ME and approaching deadlines for neocons. But why/ how would India agree to US designs there? Any kind of destabilization/ oil price spikes would hit US/ Indian economies alike.


This larger plan is work in process. It is all the Iraq, Greater Middle East, Central Asia region. It will be dealt with as and when the development takes place in these regions.

The negotiation and deal took place(2004) only after the invasion and overthrow of Saddam is one indicator. The next event is the Iran event and the deal was designed to get concessions on Iran as much as possible for the US(It may not fully satisfy the needs of the US but it helps in pushing the direction). The rebuilding of the non proliferation regime of those countries in the region is another goal. The deal was used for the larger international consensus for 21st century non proliferation. The deal was used for hedging the new developments in East Asia for the US.

Fundamentally the deal covered regions far and wide and gives an indicator to in the future in the next 25-30 years in the globe.

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

Postby Rye » 24 Jul 2007 20:04

NRao wrote:

WRT AK not being as happy, IMHO, Prabhu is right. AK has ALWAYS stated "all or nothing". He was never in favor of negotiating. Now with this stand-alone reporc plant, things must be dicey.


Okay, maybe I am just daft, but what is all this nonsense quoting Profool's verbal diarrhoea as some sort of authority on the reactions of the DAE?
How do those who are quoting him as an authority think that he has access to such folks? Or do people here not care who they quote as long as what is said is agreeable to them? How much does that affect the credibility of the people who follow such tactics?


Either Prafool is a stalwart journalist who has Bonda and coffee with the Indian nuke scientists or he is a marxist dipwad who has no love lost for the DAE or anyone else in India's scientific community, and is unlikely to have access to such people. People who want to have it both ways are not helping their own credibility.

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jul 2007 20:06

abhischekcc wrote:Acharya, I hope you will leave the Knights Templar out of the explanation :)

Thank god that subject was never discussed in BR

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 24 Jul 2007 20:07

abhischekcc wrote:My take is that this deal is actually a replacement for the NPT.
Look closely, rather it is an extension of the NPT. Almost every provision that gets applied to NNWS is being applied on India - save the main one, that is India will be free to build its own strategic options within a sepatate fuel/technology cycle.

Hyde calls for the IAEA agreement with Indian to comply to the one's done for NNWS. Let us see, what this India specific agreement with the IAEA will look like.

What the US has accomplished here is the NPT+ category. Half way in, half way out. It is a position from where the US NPA's hope to constrain India's quantitative and qualitative options in the future. From an Indian Nationalist POV the question has always been - is this compromise worth the paper it is written on?

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

Postby Rye » 24 Jul 2007 20:18

Acharya wrote:
This larger plan is work in process. It is all the Iraq, Greater Middle East, Central Asia region. It will be dealt with as and when the development takes place in these regions.


Russia and China are not about to let the EU and USA walk away with the prize in central Asia. They have already roped in Iran in their plans for Central Asian oil and gas, in competition with US+EU.


The USA's plans in Iraq did not quite work as they planned, so why would they succeed in larger grander plans with the same set of dorks in charge?

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jul 2007 20:23

Rye wrote:

Russia and China are not about to let the EU and USA walk away with the prize in central Asia. They have already roped in Iran in their plans for Central Asian oil and gas, in competition with US+EU.


The USA's plans in Iraq did not quite work as they planned, so why would they succeed in larger grander plans with the same set of dorks in charge?


Major powers never give up. They keep pushing in the direction they want the outcome. They will use all the options in hand to build what they want.
It may take 10 years, 20 years or 100 years.

If you are aware of India history and partition, they had worked on it for 100 or more years to reach the stage what it is now.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38626

Postby CRamS » 24 Jul 2007 20:23

Prabu wrote:
[quote]Looming large over the talks was the presence of India's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman Anil Kakodkar. Although Kakodkar did not participate in the negotiations, he was continually consulted to ensure that his concerns about the deal are met. Kakodkar is known to be less than happy with the deal, and has orchestrated opposition to it through his former colleagues.
[/url]

from

INDIA/US: Nuke Deal - Breakthrough or Bad Bargain?
By Praful Bidwai

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38626

It is already posted here in BR. If all scientists agree & happy 100 %, I will be one of the Proud Indian to be happy too ! Please let me be wrong for the sake of our country !



Admins, kindly allow me some leeway given the bile this traitor Purefool pukes in TSP/US newspapers, but Prabu, I would say there is more worthwhile information emanating from the flautelence of an orangutuan than anything that comes out of the purefool pig. I wish he, Nayar, ARoy etc would just get lost from India and settle down in Lawhore or DC.
Last edited by CRamS on 24 Jul 2007 21:22, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 24 Jul 2007 20:24

Folks should get off the auto whine mode and look athe the deal with fresh eyes to see what it does for India at this level of development and what it constrains in the future and then trade-off whether it is important.

Also quoting Prafool is a like clutching at straws for a drowning man.

Wait for BK or other experts.

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Ananth » 24 Jul 2007 20:31

kgoan wrote:BR owes an open apology to Bhishma (well I do anyway!) and possible others whom we've smacked around without cause** - but not the politicians, taking abuse is part of their job description.


KG:

I have been bitten once and don't see any need to apologize to him. As merlin said devil is in the details. GoI will get enough opportunities to clear the matter. Hope is they will utilize them.

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

Postby Rye » 24 Jul 2007 20:35

Acharya wrote:
Major powers never give up. They keep pushing in the direction they want the outcome. They will use all the options in hand to build what they want.
It may take 10 years, 20 years or 100 years.


Well, if we are supposedly going to be some sort of a power in the future, we will also hopefully do the same, no?

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jul 2007 20:44

Rye wrote:
Well, if we are supposedly going to be some sort of a power in the future, we will also hopefully do the same, no?


Who is stopping

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2007 20:51

This deal has to be viewed in two or three ways.

One: compare it to the J18, and see where it stands
two: in association with USs dream of GNEP
three: any other reginal (I doubt that the US views India as a global "power" - besides India is not ready for it) implications

I think it is WRT to "one" that AKs stand of "all or nothing " can be related.

Dr. Gopalkrishnan's "dumping ground" is in relation to "two". (I doubt that the US will allow India to benefit from any GNEP proceeds - India was given a seat at the table and India I assume declined. However, at a minimum, for signing this deal, the US will expect something that DAE will never like. Ths question is what is that?)

IF we all can agree that this is NOT J18, then we have a start.

I can see benefits, but like Acharya stated ..........................

Rye,

No you are not daft. Besides, I lived thru' Hi-Thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 24 Jul 2007 21:06

Apologies if already posted...
From Telegraph, 21 July 2007...

Link


[quote]
Deal done but under wraps
K.P. NAYAR


Washington, July 20: US Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration’s bouncer, took no more than two minutes to give the green light for the Washington round of negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

That green light, and US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s direct intervention on Wednesday in this week’s negotiations here, helped seal the deal two years after it was announced.

Details of the 123 Agreement needed to operationalise that deal will not be made public until a meeting of the cabinet committee on security (CCS) on the Indian side next week and formal approval by President George W. Bush.

A joint statement issued here on Friday said both sides were “pleased with the substantial progress made on the outstanding issues in the 123 Agreement. We will now refer the issue to our governments for final reviewâ€

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jul 2007 21:13

I think this is important to understand the motives of the US establishment



Kimball argues that this would be the fourth major departure from the U.S. laws and policies. The first happened in July 2005 when the Bush administration agreed to drop its longstanding policy of restricting nuclear cooperation with states that have nuclear weapons, or have tested them, and refuse to allow full-scope IAEA safeguards.

The second departure took place when the Bush administration gave up its demand that India suspend production of fissile material for weapons purposes. The third happened in March 2006 when the U.S. urged India to include in its list of ‘civil’ nuclear facilities slated to be put under safeguards reactors falling in its fast breeder programme; "but again, India refused and the U.S. side went along".

Unless the 123 agreement is rejected by the Indian cabinet, or fails to win Congressional ratification, which seems highly unlikely, the arms controllers would have to take their battle to other fora which must approve the deal before it gets come into effect: the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group and the IAEA.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 24 Jul 2007 21:23

Oh! come come.

The US IS THE CURRENT HYPERPOWER. They can sanction anyone they like, attack anyone they like (Provided that anyone doesn't have the ability to create enough bodybags back home, and cause political trouble. In that case they resort to cunning and backhand tactics).

India hasn't signed any of the so many US orginated treaties, but did it ever matter. we were in Nuclear isolation since 1974. Even when russia supplied fuel for Tarapore, it was with a US understanding.

The likely damaging parts of this deal have been filtered out, such was the microscopic detail over language and placement of commas. The larger picture is that we got into an INTENSE dealmaking process with the americans, understood american dealmaking dhanda, and the US got an idea of what indian governmental dealmaking was like. Mutual respect I would say flows. this is what I beleive has happened, from what all I read and hear.

This deal talks about CIVILIAN nuclear cooperation, as SEPERATE from Military nuclear activities that india carries out. And recognizes that India HAS A MILITARY NUCLEAR PROGRAMME. I really don't think fissile material are going to be restricted by this deal, just because we still continue to make as much as we would like to have in the forseeable future(and beyond) - Our nuclear doctrine says so when it states that we maintain a credible nuclear deterrant, and does not specify numbers, saying they will be flexible.

As regards sending our troops to fight someone else's war, INDIA is nobody's fool, never has been. And neither will India gang up with the US against China, we will harmonise / balance / utilize each (US / China - Two expected power centers this century) to become a world superpower ourselves. In a few decades, the average westerner "gora chamdi"-man on the streets worldview will change to accomodate a China and an India, their governments already are.

Cheers
Last edited by p_saggu on 25 Jul 2007 10:23, edited 1 time in total.

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Postby ksmahesh » 24 Jul 2007 22:23

Ofcourse, the text is not out but do we yet have info on:

we can reprocess the US supplied fuel. But
1. What about the fuel supplied by rest of NSG.
2. Indian military reactors.

In addition to this some more issues are:

Say we setup the reproc facility in collaboration with some company (ala Maruti) and use additional information gained in our military reproc facility. Is some fine print in 123 stop it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2007 22:36

Sagguji,

This deal has still to be reconciled with the Hyde Act and re-passed. It is not done as yet.

Then there is the IAEA (which I think will flip the way the US goes) and NSG, which will be dandy.

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

Postby bala » 24 Jul 2007 22:46

Thus far, the US top brass Bush, Cheney and Rice have conceded the US-India Nuke deal in good faith. The braying NPT Ayatollahs and other nay sayers are stunned by the outcome. They will try to be nuisance for a while but the diminishing returns will bring them to their senses eventually. Indians are equally in disbelief that the US has practically inducted India into the NWS hall of fame. There will be a period of "buyers remorse" that would eventually fade away. The dynamics of world politics will change, India will be included in all big player discussions. China will initially be squeamish about the new found status of India, but over a period of time China has to accommodate a large neighboring nation like India. India needs to grow up and accept its status and play the game of the big boys.

Sunoor Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 22:33
Location: Edge of a precipice

Postby Sunoor Singh » 24 Jul 2007 22:55

And recognizes that India is ALLOWED A MILITARY NUCLEAR PROGRAMME.


Sagguji,
The words India is ALLOWED go against the spirit of the rest of your post.

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

Postby Manav » 24 Jul 2007 23:07

p_saggu wrote:
The likely damaging parts of this deal have been filtered out, such was the microscopic detail over language and placement of commas. The larger picture is that we got into an INTENSE dealmaking process with the americans, understood american dealmaking dhanda, and the US got an idea of what indian governmental dealmaking was like. Mutual respect I would say flows. this is what I beleive has happened, from what all I read and hear.



From what I have been given to understand, this is supposed to be the case. I read something about bus drivers in some of the earlier posts....

Well, a bus driver and one who has been in the control room for a while gave me to understand, in so many words, that the US and India are now in a phase of interacting on - as he put it - different plateaus (whatever that means!) The Indo-US nuke deal was one of them. As p_saggu put it, the nuke deal (but a number of other 'joint-projects' currently underway are instances of where we "understood american dealmaking dhanda, and the US got an idea of what indian governmental dealmaking was like." Apparently, this is part of a process by which estrangement is becoming engagement.

One of the primary concerns with the Indians was whether the Americans were blinding India to some local (to India) geo-strategic (re) configurations. According to this gent, the Indians identified a number of such possibilities and brought them to the attention of the Americans (I guess they have been dealt with it (apparently) to mutual satisfaction). He did not care to elaborate further and I resisted the urge to ask him. Will do so DAT when we are to meet again socially.

Also, it was interesting to note that the driver identified AK as the one who was the backup during the negotiations and who would/ could apparently pull the plug on the matter if things did not go the way the Indian team wanted, which was - so this guy alledges - the reason Nick Burns insisted on AK showing up to a dinner than he hosted. I have no idea if this rings true. But the point of AK being in the background to 'clear' the tech aspects of the deal have been mentioned on this thread some time back.

My question to him was 'why'? Why is the US going to these lengths (making exceptions etc.) to woo India?

His answer: (with a wry smile) Have the Americans actually given up anything significant? (I really don't know on what basis he says this - aren't the execptions that the US (at least on the surface) is making significant? Or, maybe not! I don't know. Some of you more knowledgable guys would know.

NOTE: My opinions are not part of this post. This is what the guy said - right or wrong.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Postby Manny » 24 Jul 2007 23:12

bala wrote:Thus far, the US top brass Bush, Cheney and Rice have conceded the US-India Nuke deal in good faith. The braying NPT Ayatollahs and other nay sayers are stunned by the outcome. They will try to be nuisance for a while but the diminishing returns will bring them to their senses eventually. Indians are equally in disbelief that the US has practically inducted India into the NWS hall of fame. There will be a period of "buyers remorse" that would eventually fade away. The dynamics of world politics will change, India will be included in all big player discussions. China will initially be squeamish about the new found status of India, but over a period of time China has to accommodate a large neighboring nation like India. India needs to grow up and accept its status and play the game of the big boys.


Very well put.

Its healthy to be cautious but it takes a chicken Little to be paranoid!

Manny

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

Postby Arun_S » 24 Jul 2007 23:14

Shankar wrote:In short we most likely will have two distint fuel use circuits 70% in safeguarded IAEC monitored circuit and 30% in indian circuit to use and utilise the way we deem fit

Surely we will loose a lot if we decide to test even without return clause applicable.

And here lies the catch how much we can develop particularly in advanced weapon systems and miniaturizations without actually testing the device in totality

To me agreeing to this deal is agreeing to cap our nuclear weapon proven capability to 98 level and degrading our fissile material build up to 30 % of full potential for a vague term called energy security

Well lets also look at the "half full glass".
1. This deal overtly makes India a P5+1 NWS. Existence of Indian nation beyond foreign coercion is assured for eternity.
2. Pokharan-II nuclear test has proofed
__ A. sub-kt weapons (3 tests)
__ B. Boosted fission weapons that are very efficient (Use ~1-2 Kg fissile material for 20kt yield). (4 tests including primary of Shakti-1)
__ C. Thermonuclear weapon that is:
    1. definitely lighter than <1,000lb (450Kg) per RC. Other sources say 250Kg.
    2. Yield of 45kt without active material tertiary stage
    3. Yield of at least 190kt with light weight tertiary of moderate enriched U235 or Pu
    4. Yield of at least 250kt with slightly heavier tertiary of moderate enriched U235 or Pu
3. Now let us say that this Civil Nuclear deal does not happen. Can someone tell me why and when India will do a nuke test? Next Nuke test only makes sense when deterrence threshold is near tripping (thus ensure powder is dry and ready to go) OR there is significant newcomer to the game OR a newer weapons technology that others have gotten (E.g. Fusion explosion without fission primary). The bottom line is India wants to keep sovereign right to conduct future nuke test if it considers necessary. That we have in this nuke deal. and Yes it will entail a financial cost; it is not that the financial cost is zero if India does not sign this deal and then do N test.

4. From above India had a wide range of nuclear capability that is adequate for biggest challenge we can face in next ~15 years. If BARC delivers on the Thorium power by then AND if security situation deteriorate to a level when India does needs 5 lightweight MIRV ICBM, India will have the strategic space to test & show its wares to potential challenger. If BARC has not delivered Thorium power by then, guess what India does not deserve BARC. Yet India will have smaller though adequate strategic space to test & show new weapons.

since less than 5% of our energy needs are met by nuclear power as of date

we have the technology to make complete nuke based power reactors and fast breeder reactors in totality

by signing this deal and agreeing to us terms and allowing ourselves to be vulnerable to us lobby we are antagonizing countries like iran who can ensure our ebergy security far better thru bilateral agreements
There will be a day after tomorrow if only I survive today and tomorrow. And Iran will stay in close proximity of India for many eons. Yet we need to see and ensure Iran serves as an instrument of Indian interests now and in future. It has excess energy today, yes serve India this way, it has border with Afghanistan and Central Asia, yes serve India that way, tomorrow it has no energy, they will continue to be useful to Indian interests.

National sovereignty is not negotiable.

Indo-US partnership YES; alley NO.

Oh BTW, Indian reactors in non-civilian use and Indian origin uranium are beyond the preview of this deal 20% enrichment crap is for imported fuel. Even Tellis and Condi Rice have said in their testimony India has more than enough uranium and non-IAEA spent fuel to make as many bums it chooses to make IF only it decides to.
Last edited by Arun_S on 25 Jul 2007 19:51, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jul 2007 23:14

Manav wrote:

His answer: (with a wry smile) Have the Americans actually given up anything significant? (I really don't know on what basis he says this - aren't the execptions that the US (at least on the surface) is making significant? Or, maybe not! I don't know. Some of you more knowledgable guys would know.


The deviations which Americans have allowed are really nothing when NPT has been extended indefinetly. US has to deal with only one country which is hemmed by two hostile nations.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 25 Jul 2007 00:44

Centre reluctant to reveal 123 text :: By Seema Mustafa

Strategic expert Brahma Chellaney pointed out that India, again according to the leaked reports, has been unable to secure "an unhindered right to reprocess spent fuel from the US power reactors it would import". Only an "in principle" right has been conceded to India with the actual reprocessing arrangements to be worked out in the years ahead. Dr Prasad said he could not understand why the government had agreed to this. "They should have taken a tougher stand, reprocessing is our right and there should have been no question of binding it under conditions," he said. The government should not have allowed a dedicated facility for foreign-origin fuel, he said, pointing out that it would be built at Indian cost and then placed under safeguards. "We will pay now to restrict our rights," he said. Interestingly, one of the many doctored reports coming out in the media had recently suggested that Dr Prasad had fully supported the 123 agreement.

Dr Prasad decried the "jugglery of words", adding, "the government should clearly say what is in the text, and how the concerns have been dealt with". Every day since the team of officials returned from Washington scribes are being selected for the government’s "disinformation" campaign. Officials, when contacted, deny any such briefings have taken place, although the last such group to be given a "preview" of the document that the government is not keen to release before it has prepared sufficient ground, met over drinks at the foreign secretary’s residence recently.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 01:00

we should not forget what kalam said.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/02/stories ... 311000.htm

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 722
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 25 Jul 2007 01:03

It will be interesting to know how this deal will help us reprocess the Tarapur stock. Per some reports, we got approval for reprocessing but the actual agreement will happen when the need arises (when we want to reprocess the NSG sourced fuel and have a dedicated facility for that)

My hope is that the existing stocks are not to be treated similar to NSG sourced fuel. Hopefully there is some clause which allows to reprocess this in our existing facilities.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 25 Jul 2007 01:14

I would assume that DAE would not settle for anything less than a blanket approval for reproc. Now let us assume that below is true:

Strategic expert Brahma Chellaney pointed out that India, again according to the leaked reports, has been unable to secure "an unhindered right to reprocess spent fuel from the US power reactors it would import". Only an "in principle" right has been conceded to India with the actual reprocessing arrangements to be worked out in the years ahead.

There were reports that if and when India wants reproc rights, India & US have to discuss and have to agree in principle within 1 year. If ultimately they have to agree, isn't it 'YES' for reproc? and actual reproc would start only about 4 years after the first time phoren N-fuel is processed.

2nd Q has been the cost of the reproc plant. There is an upfront cost, that can be recovered with a cost-plus or fixed processing fee. Also, in future, India if she wishes so, can participate in GNEP as a net fuel provider, and not as a client state (provided BARC can commercialize FBR).

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 25 Jul 2007 01:17

My hope is that the existing stocks are not to be treated similar to NSG sourced fuel. Hopefully there is some clause which allows to reprocess this in our existing facilities.

Our existing stocks are our own, their utilization sole preserve of GoI/ DAE. IAEA/ US/ NSG don't have anything to do with how they are used/ processed.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 01:29

I think the issue is not ours and theirs. I think, it is what is civil and what is not? We have to expend technology both into civil and military requirements, that I think the civilian (ours) will mostly be the FBRs that would be dedicated to nation, within the IAEA monitored facilities.

If we have no problems in letting the americans to control these facilities, then it should be okay with us. Perhaps the design of our reactors should be fool proof enough for them keep at certain guess distance on the technology front., unless the Indo-US deal did talk about selling the technology in a reverse-ToT way. You can expect that from this govt.

Already Obama wants India reprocessing and spent fuel storage technology, that we have mastered., be shared with the Americans as the first condition.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 25 Jul 2007 01:41

We have to expend technology both into civil and military requirements, that I think the civilian (ours) will mostly be the FBRs that would be dedicated to nation, within the IAEA monitored facilities.
...
Already Obama wants India reprocessing and spent fuel storage technology, that we have mastered., be shared with the Americans as the first condition.

SaiK, Arun_S had clarified the first Q couple of pages earlier. FBR is the 'goose that lays the Golden egg'.. Just like Coke's 121 year old secret formula. Never to be shared with anyone.

2nd (Obama wanting FBR tech) is interesting.. Do you have any links?

Acharya,
123 is a pre-cursor to "Son of NPT"? I thought, it was more linke 5+1, and a recognition of India's arrival on the high table totally on her own merit. Now, it could be limiting FBR'c commercialization within GNEP (and controlling the emerging energy cartel for the next 25-50 years)? Something that US has a better leverage with having India inside the tent?

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 25 Jul 2007 01:42

SaiK wrote:I think the issue is not ours and theirs. I think, it is what is civil and what is not? We have to expend technology both into civil and military requirements, that I think the civilian (ours) will mostly be the FBRs that would be dedicated to nation, within the IAEA monitored facilities.

If we have no problems in letting the americans to control these facilities, then it should be okay with us. Perhaps the design of our reactors should be fool proof enough for them keep at certain guess distance on the technology front., unless the Indo-US deal did talk about selling the technology in a reverse-ToT way. You can expect that from this govt.

Already Obama wants India reprocessing and spent fuel storage technology, that we have mastered., be shared with the Americans as the first condition.

We should share reprocessing tech and we should place our own conditions - both nuclear and geo strategic
Last edited by vnadendla on 25 Jul 2007 01:53, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests