Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 01 Aug 2007

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 01 Aug 2007 23:10

aaah! TSJ => Mantikos !

:) ... thanks Mort.. now that saved me from replying to him.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 01 Aug 2007 23:30

Manne,

OK. Would appreciate if you can ping me at indicgroup at netscape dot net.

Thanks

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7598
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 01 Aug 2007 23:36

OTOH it is naive to think that India will ever sign FMTC, because that will by definition mean end of 3 stage fuel cycle and non-civil facility seperation. Not to mention end of ATV or its future varient.


Production of weapons grade fissile material for naval propulsion is allowed under the draft FMCT.

3 stage program is inherently civilian and allowed. Brazilian style screens (or perhaps just IAEA at the front door, the back door and inside the toilets) should suffice for IPR.

FMCT is no problem once sufficient weapons grade Pu and U is in stockpile.

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 01 Aug 2007 23:48

NRao,

There you go again with your inexplicable fixation on the Hyde act.

The GoI only has to fulfill those commitments that it agrees to a bilateral agreement like 123 and in return expect the Americans to only fulfill those commitments that they have likewise agreed to.

If the Americans try to weasel out of their commitments such as perpetual fuel supply then we are under no obligations to honour our commitments in return. And I do not care what their internal laws are, Hyde act or no Hyde act. They signed a bilateral agreement with us and the text of that is what we are going to hold them to.

The Americans can pass whatever internal laws they want to. That is their business. We only care about the commitments we sign up for and not what some in the American Congress think our commitments ought to be. The can take those and shove them up their musharaffs.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 01 Aug 2007 23:54

actually we do have to care about US laws and everything hyde etc. after the deal is done.. in the sense, that applies to us and that it completely passes the test at our nuke club, parliament and public discussion.

why? 'cause we can then decide if we need to source nuclear fuel / technology from america or elsewhere - france/russia/etc.. why buy it from them and get into a thick hyde.

get this deal pass off that benefits us. else, consider it hot potato!

deal or no deal.. if P5s and other potential gangers continues to gang up on us.. then we might as well consider not signing. hence, its important that deal specifies that yanks would ensure fuel supplies from NSG, and its poodles don't blindly follow the yanks on such decisions.

they can sign up for that, and still continue to behave different. back to square, the haves and the have nots!..

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 01 Aug 2007 23:58

The Hyde act does not apply to us. The 123 agreement does.

The Americans can try to pretend otherwise but that does not change this basic fact.

It is as simple as that.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 00:02

The funny thing is the US insistence that
The Injuns REALIZED that American Law Is Not Going To Change


Er... to put it as our noltheln neighbols might say:

Vely vely frexibre, the lound-eye red by Xiao Bushy. Said same thing when EP-3 was folce-randed on Hainan. Sent back in crates, minus all Crassified Mateliar.


Also,

Prease leview histoly of Snair Dalter.

INFLEXBRE RAWS! CAPITARIST IMPELIARISTS????:rotfl: :rotfl:

williams
BRFite
Posts: 379
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Postby williams » 02 Aug 2007 00:03

I have a feeling that the Bush Admin are more open to cooperation than Congress. So they will allow India to have better deals with other countries. And further force Congress wallas to cooperate.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 00:03

sparsh,

While I agree in principle, there are bound to be repercussions from the Hyde Act, no two ways about that. We will have to wait for the 123, but early returns seem to state that Indian testing, while not in 123, will stop fuels and other supply. 123 probably does not state that.

Time to move on.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 00:05

it does.. it can infringe upon say as an example westinghouse for any sales to India. get it? it can act on its law, to prevent business entities to work with us.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Aug 2007 00:07

There was no Hyde act back in 1998 but that never stopped the US from placing sanctions on India for testing. So nothing is going to stop the US from imposing sanctions on India --- hyde Act or not --- if the GOTUS believed that the cost/consequences of such an action would be acceptable for global US interests.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 00:15

it was "Glenn-Symington amendment" for 1998.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 00:18

Rye wrote:There was no Hyde act back in 1998 but that never stopped the US from placing sanctions on India for testing. So nothing is going to stop the US from imposing sanctions on India --- hyde Act or not --- if the GOTUS believed that the cost/consequences of such an action would be acceptable for global US interests.


If you are arguing that the change in the form of 123, as compared to 1998, is +ve, I agree.

May be I am daft to expect a total reversal of US Laws based on J18. Which, BTW, is what the then Indian Amby had on his web site!!!!!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 00:22


VickersB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 28 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Dhalli

Postby VickersB » 02 Aug 2007 00:22

ok they're bearing it all on thursday

Text of 123 Agreement to be out Thursday

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/01ndeal1.htm

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Aug 2007 00:32

Rye wrote:ramdas wrote:

In theory that is indeed the case.. but what is this commitment to work towards an FMCT in the 123/J18 agreement/Hyde Act ? Does this still leave us with the option of opposing the FMCT if the FMCT does not suit our interests?


India' s stance always has been that it will work towards a universally-verifiable FMCT -- if the P5 refuse to accept a universally-verifiable FMCT, it is not India's problem.
Then why did India not strongly object and allowed the American proposal of self verification to proceed, last month. I know the GoI public stance - that stance needs to be consistent.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Aug 2007 00:51

Nrao wrote:
If you are arguing that the change in the form of 123, as compared to 1998, is +ve, I agree.


No, I am saying that if Indo-US relations are going to nosedive in the future and the US finds that its strategic relationship with India is not working, it does not matter if none of the offending clauses are in the Hyde act today. Both sides will adhere to their part of the bargain only as long as they believe that it is better than breaking the agreement.
Last edited by Rye on 02 Aug 2007 01:18, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 00:57

Rye wrote:Nrao wrote:
If you are arguing that the change in the form of 123, as compared to 1998, is +ve, I agree.


No, I am saying that if Indo-US relations are going to nosedive in the future and the US finds that its strategic relationship with the US is not working, it does not matter if none of the offending clauses are in the Hyde act today. Both sides will adhere to their part of the bargain only as long as they believe that it is better than breaking the agreement.


Ah. I see.

However, the cost over that period - for construction of reactors, etc - will be borne by India. Billions of dollars.

I guess, then, the issue is we need to compute what are the chances that the relationship will be stable. I can see Indian PMs stating that we do not need to test - no matter what.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Aug 2007 01:04

ShauryaT wrote:
Then why did India not strongly object and allowed the American proposal of self verification to proceed, last month. I know the GoI public stance - that stance needs to be consistent.


One can only hope that the GoI stops unneeded secrecy and gets its word out before its opponents do.

Here is some of the details of the US view on "verification"


http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/81950.htm

Nor would an FMCT verification system be able to get around this problem by focusing merely upon detecting undeclared production facilities, for this too would be enormously difficult. In the NPT nuclear weapons states, for instance, an FMCT verification regime would have to detect FMCT-noncompliant nuclear production activity at sites and facilities associated with nuclear weapons without compromising proliferation-sensitive information; this would place legitimate constraints upon the intrusiveness of inspections. NPT non-Parties also have extensive nuclear fuel cycles that would make the problem of detecting undeclared activities difficult.

Any verification scheme for an FMCT would have to address six fundamental verification issues: (1) detection of production of fissile material at clandestine facilities; (2) monitoring declared fissile material production facilities; (3) providing for the exclusion from verification of fissile material produced for non-proscribed but sensitive (e.g., military) uses after the Treaty's production cut-off date; (4) monitoring material declared as having been produced after the cut-off date, to verify that it is not diverted; (5) excluding from verification fissile material produced before the cutoff date; and (6) determination of acceptable end-use of material produced after the cut-off date. The United States has concluded that, even with extensive verification mechanisms and provisions - so extensive that they could compromise core national security interests, and so costly that many countries would be hesitant to implement them -- and even coupled with the complementary employment of national means and methods of verification, it would not be possible to achieve adequate confidence in FMCT verification.

The United States believes it is unrealistic to expect negotiations to produce an international verification regime that successfully addresses these issues, or to expect that such a regime could be effectively implemented in key signatory states. Furthermore, mechanisms and provisions that provide the appearance of effective verification could provide a false sense of security leading governments -- individually or collectively -- to fail to guard against possible violations through application of their respective national means of verification.


So here's my question: If unsafeguarded sites are out of bounds to inspection and thus verification... what will the mechanism be to enforce these verification clauses at those sites? And if verification is based on each country reporting its own violation (which is what the US approach seems to be), what good is it?

Besides, can we be certain that China will *not* link non-FMCT issues in the CD in these negotiations? Because doing so will delay the FMCT.

Here are the hurdles of verification:

http://www.usmission.ch/Press2006/0518R ... Press.html

Note the kind of hurdles in the way of "a successful conclusion to the FMCT", as described by Mr. Stephen Rademaker, current US NSA.

There was a very elaborate verification regime ultimately negotiated there which our experts judged gave them satisfactory
insight into Soviet compliance with the arms control obligations.

The difference here is that this is not a bilateral negotiation; it is a multilateral negotiation. Sixty-five countries are going to have to agree by consensus on any verification mechanism that is structured here. We have taken into account what positions those 65 countries are likely to take, what types of measures those governments will likely be prepared to agree to, and reviewed what we think will be the result. We also asked ourselves the question of whether that resulting verification regime could give us a reasonable level of assurance that cheating can be detected by that mechanism. Our answer to that has been no.

This does not mean, and I’ve referred to this in my statement, that the FMCT would be unverified. It would be the responsibility of all of the parties to use the means and methods at their disposal to reach judgments about whether other parties to the treaty were complying with the treaty. Should concerns emerge, our text does include a mechanism for asking the Security Council to consider whether there has been compliance or non-compliance with the treaty.

Last edited by Rye on 02 Aug 2007 01:31, edited 3 times in total.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 01:23

(3) providing for the exclusion from verification of fissile material produced for non-proscribed but sensitive (e.g., military) uses after the Treaty's production cut-off date;


Oh! So what does FMCT stand for, if they are not going to cut off production of bum material?

FEDAYEEN MATERIAL COUNTING TECHNIQUE?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 01:30

US will ask India to ditch Iran for N-deal: Swamy

Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi | August 01, 2007 16:06 IST
Janata Party president Dr Subramanian Swamy, now in Harvard University teaching economics, has said that the celebrations in the United Progressive Alliance circles on the finalisation of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement is highly premature.

He said that the whole event could end up in an acute embarrassment for the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh .

In his statement, Swamy has said that his inquiries reveal that the passage of the proposals to be incorporated into the Hyde Act will require a categorical commitment that India will not only have no dealings with Iran but will actively support the US efforts to curb the current Iranian regime.

Swamy added that while there is no doubt that Iran has violated it's international commitments as a signatory to the NPT, and should not be allowed to renege on it's treaty obligations, nevertheless the price that is being asked for by the US Senate to ratify the nuclear deal proposals are too high and not worth paying by India.

He said that India should sign the deal only if the US formally recognises India as a nuclear weapons power, and the concomitant rights of that status, then joining the US in the United Nations to make Iran accountable is worth the price in the larger national
security concerns.

Swamy said, "For the present, I oppose these new emerging escape clauses in the Nuclear Deal being suggested for inclusion, including the US' right to abrogate the agreement if India tested nuclear devices in the future. Since we are at the threshold of a breakthrough in the Thorium cycle, the Indo-US Nuclear Deal will scuttle India's hard won self-reliance in nuclear technology without compensating advantages.

Unless the concept of parity of India with other UN Security Council is recognised by the US, India can continue as before without any significant setback for our energy planning."
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/01ndeal2.htm

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

Postby bala » 02 Aug 2007 01:31

On Hyde Act: The US Congress has not changed their thinking as far as NPT is concerned and in fact the NPT is well entrenched within the US congress. The NPT Ayatollahs have added all their favorite clauses to the Hyde Act thus constraining US Gotus with coming up with any novel ideas as far as India Nuke deal is concerned. However, 123 agreement has cleverly circumvented certain key provisions like the Nuke Test clause without impinging on Hyde. In case India were to test, then the presidential legal advisers would bring up Hyde Act and insist on enforcement. This is where things get interesting. India reminds the US president of 123 and per provisions has to restrain from any uranium material withdrawal until India can get alternate supplies. This could potentially take years and all the brouhaha of Indian Nuke testing dies down. The whole thing lapses with occasional braying by the Ayatollahs. The US President is now on to other important topics and gives a fig about Indian Nuclear Tests.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7598
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 02 Aug 2007 01:52


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 02:02

[quote] West Bengal House seeks details on 123 pact

Special Correspondent

KOLKATA: The West Bengal Assembly adopted a motion on Wednesday demanding that the United Progressive Alliance Government provide Parliament with all details related to the 123 agreement between India and the United States of America. It was also critical of the deepening military co-operation between the two countries.

“This House categorically states that the people of this country will not accept any attempt to impose conditions by any country on India on supply of nuclear fuel to India,â€

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

Postby bala » 02 Aug 2007 02:52

Kudankulam may get four more nuclear plants

The next four nuclear reactors from Russia could well be located in Kudankulam itself, where currently two reactors of 1,000 MW each are being put up. “Kudankulam can take at least four more,â€

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 03:04

when reactors (by design) are themselves reprocessing facilities, then each such facility by default become reprocessing centers. i think i am getting confused with their ways of reprocessing with our 3 stage plan that just reuses the end product of one stage into the other.

more clarification needed as to what this new reprocessing facility will do?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Aug 2007 03:05

stressing that he was happy with the conclusion of the agreement with the US in as much as it did not affect the domestic nuclear programme in any way.
Anyone quoting AK, should also mention the highlighted part , which he is very careful to use. But ofcourse, the headlines always only say that AK is satisfied...

The price paid for the deal is not the weapons program or the 3 stage program, it is a political price. It is the codified strategic reduction of India.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 929
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 02 Aug 2007 04:02

Text of 123 Agreement to be out Thursday
The Indian government is expected to release on Thursday or Friday the text of 123 Agreement finalised between India and the United States to operationalise the civil nuclear deal.

According to sources in the Ministry of External Affairs, the text will be simultaneously released in Washington and New Delhi.

The agreement which Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns termed as, "perhaps the single most important initiative that India and the United States have agreed to in the 60 years of our relationship" has vertically divided opinion in both countries.

Both governments have finalised the highly controversial deal on July 20, 2007, in Washington but, for some curious reasons, are reluctant to release the text.

It's believed that Indian government wanted their own understanding and contexts of the 123 Agreement to spread before the criticism could build up in the media.

Also, the government wanted to brief the Left parties and the Bharatiya Janta Party before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] tables the deal in the Parliament.

But, both left parties and BJP who have been opposing the deal didn't reject or accept the government's position on the deal and preferred to wait for the text.

As a result Dr Singh could not even proceed to develop some sort of consensus within Indian political establishment. Rather, the statements made by Burns in Washington on 27, July (http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/89559.htm) has upset the government's stated position in on the record and off the record briefings on the 123 Agreement.

The sources in MEA claims that the reprocessing agreement is being separately done and the mention of the future nuclear test is absent from the 123 Agreement but still the government will have to respond to Burns' arguments.

Burns has made so far eight trips to India and both sides took two years and two days to negotiate the deal.

It is expected that the radical deal will have far reaching impact on India's foreign policy, nuclear ambitions, strategic thinking and its position in South Asia and on the global trade of India, particularly in the sector of the dual use of the high technology.

From the government side the argument goes that in all the nitty-gritty reporting on 123 Agreement and nuclear deal, most people are missing the wood for the trees. This week the global order has been changed.

Irrespective of the fate of the 123 Agreement and the stand the Nuclear Suppliers Group takes, India has a new status.

At some (huge cost, critics say) cost India will get out of the sanctions regime and India will get uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel so crucial to expand the nuclear energy sector.

The joint press conference addressed by National Security Advisor M K Narayanan, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar and Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on July 27 failed to bring out any such euphoria when grilled by the media.

Rather, Kakodkar, the government's trump card to give credibility to the deal, avoided all the vital issues.

He was ultra-cautious most times and didn't give any indication that he was celebrating a breakthrough, as claimed by government, in India's nuclear history.

This is what rediff.com asked him in the joint press conference: "Dr Kakodkar, we do not know much about your department. But we would like to know how jubilant your scientists are or what is the exact reaction of the scientists. Are they celebrating or not? Secondly, can you explain in layman's language how radical this moment is for you and the scientists of India? And I would like to know what you have not got that the nuclear weapon states have got?"

The pragmatic Dr Kakodkar said, "I think we are all karmayogis. So, we just carry the work on and this will allow us to remain consistent with that philosophy in an expanded manner."

"You have not answered that question, "What is it that you could have got?" persisted another senior reporter.

Kakodkar merely said, "I think the NSA (Narayanan) responded to that right in the beginning. I can have a huge wish list, but that is not the point. The point is with what objective we set out in July 18, 2005, and whether we are consistent with that.

And the answer is yes."

The Indian side may be tight-lipped or extra-alert but critics of the deal say Burns' statement of July 27 has all that the Indian side would like to hide.

The Left parties and the BJP have been discussing within the party forum about Burns' statement and what the PMO has briefed them.

Burns' statement regarding future nuclear tests is terse and clear. He has said that if India conducted a nuclear test, or if "there is ever any reason for the United States to have to invoke the right-of-return, [of nuclear fuel and technology] we could certainly do so."

Importantly, Burns has said in his statement, "Our two countries will also subsequently agree on a set of arrangements and procedures under which reprocessing will take place. And for those of you who are steeped in this, you know that's called for by Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954."

Dr A N Prasad who has been severe critic of the deal from the beginning said the conditions under Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 are too stringent and it will be difficult for India to follow.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 02 Aug 2007 04:59

US will ask India to ditch Iran for N-deal: Swamy

Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi | August 01, 2007 16:06 IST
J...celebrations in the United Progressive Alliance circles on the finalisation of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement is highly premature.

Finally, some body said it!
In his statement, Swamy has said that his inquiries reveal that the passage of the proposals to be incorporated into the Hyde Act will require a categorical commitment that India will not only have no dealings with Iran but will actively support the US efforts to curb the current Iranian regime.

What are these proposals that are to be incorporated into Hyde. Did Burns not say a similar thing?

Swamy said, "For the present, I oppose these new emerging escape clauses in the Nuclear Deal being suggested for inclusion, including the US' right to abrogate the agreement if India tested nuclear devices in the future. Since we are at the threshold of a breakthrough in the Thorium cycle, the Indo-US Nuclear Deal will scuttle India's hard won self-reliance in nuclear technology without compensating advantages.

Amazing, he talks sense...

Thorium, thorium, I just hope everybody at BARC etc. are on hyper-drive now. They've got to come demo the three-stage and hustle...there is no excuse for not standing on our own two feet, is there. Deal, sheal, whatever...

there I said it...just before the draft comes out.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 05:35

I am so happy that Dr. Swamy has managed to impress some of us with his "sense".

In his statement, Swamy has said that his inquiries reveal that the passage of the proposals to be incorporated into the Hyde Act will require a categorical commitment that India will not only have no dealings with Iran but will actively support the US efforts to curb the current Iranian regime.
..........

He said that India should sign the deal only if the US formally recognises India as a nuclear weapons power, and the concomitant rights of that status, then joining the US in the United Nations to make Iran accountable is worth the price in the larger national
security concerns.


As I understand, the 123 agreement as signed, is to be submitted for an "up-down vote", period. There is no other "requiring India" to do anything, and I am not sure what Swamy's "investigations" are.

What Swamy is doing, is to set the stage where WHEN India does what makes sense - vote with the majority when the UN takes up Iran's violation of the NPT that Iran signed - then Swamy can say:

Aha! I tolled u sow! and look very smart and impress some of us even more with his "sense".

This is like me saying:
My investigations reveal that India has agreed to refrain from invading Pakistan and liberating Kashmir for the next 3 months, as a price for the US agreeing to this deal


Check back in 3 months' time, and see if I am not "proved" right. :roll:

Anyway, good to see Dr. Swamy taking an interest in something a bit more substantive than whether Sonia went to Cambridge English School for Imported Nannies, or Cambridge School for Important English Ninnies and getting kicked out by the Supreme Court of India yet again.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 02 Aug 2007 05:59

enqyoob wrote:I am so happy that Dr. Swamy has managed to impress some of us with his "sense".

In his statement, Swamy has said that his inquiries reveal that the passage of the proposals to be incorporated into the Hyde Act will require a categorical commitment that India will not only have no dealings with Iran but will actively support the US efforts to curb the current Iranian regime.
..........

He said that India should sign the deal only if the US formally recognises India as a nuclear weapons power, and the concomitant rights of that status, then joining the US in the United Nations to make Iran accountable is worth the price in the larger national
security concerns.


As I understand, the 123 agreement as signed, is to be submitted for an "up-down vote", period. There is no other "requiring India" to do anything, and I am not sure what Swamy's "investigations" are.

What Swamy is doing, is to set the stage where WHEN India does what makes sense - vote with the majority when the UN takes up Iran's violation of the NPT that Iran signed - then Swamy can say:

Aha! I tolled u sow! and look very smart and impress some of us even more with his "sense".

This is like me saying:
My investigations reveal that India has agreed to refrain from invading Pakistan and liberating Kashmir for the next 3 months, as a price for the US agreeing to this deal


Check back in 3 months' time, and see if I am not "proved" right. :roll:

Anyway, good to see Dr. Swamy taking an interest in something a bit more substantive than whether Sonia went to Cambridge English School for Imported Nannies, or Cambridge School for Important English Ninnies and getting kicked out by the Supreme Court of India yet again.


I don't think he's talking about changes to 123, but "proposals to be incorporated into Hyde", which is what I don't understand. I recall reading here that there were some small options in hyde, if india wanted to go that way. Don't have it handy but the question remains, what proposals?

hey, if we can chatter about here, guess swamy could too, huh. I qualify, its amazing, amazing repeated for effect, that he makes sense...but that isnt a testimony of his genius (which i know not much of or care for).

The big point being there is so darn much hype about the good of this deal, such enthu, that that in itself raises red flags. Read Dr. Kakodkar's responses...the poor man responds with karmayoga for goodness' sake. That says something? He's just come out of this barely protecting all that they've worked for since Prof. Bhabha!

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 06:14

Sorry, Samuel. Swamy is nothing more than a 400% cheap opportunist who looks out 500% with single-minded, laser-like focus for just ONE person - #1.

All his statements have to be seen in that light, sorry. Too much experience. Kills the "enthu" as u say.

See above (well... a few threads ago) about why the Energizer Bunnies are trying to put down the deal. It has little to do with conservative caution or patriotism or anything else good - it is JUST raw political Sour Grapes.

Not so long ago, these worthies came out with a "White Paper" - authored by one of their stellar Think Tank experts, PhD and all - Penn State U and all - declaring that India had absolutely no need for nuclear power since India had all the electrical power she needed, now and for the future.

As Michael Jackson would have said, "Sad! Sad! Sooo Saaaaaad!"

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 02 Aug 2007 06:34

enqyoob wrote:Sorry, Samuel. Swamy is nothing more than a 400% cheap opportunist who looks out 500% with single-minded, laser-like focus for just ONE person - #1.

All his statements have to be seen in that light, sorry. Too much experience. Kills the "enthu" as u say.

See above (well... a few threads ago) about why the Energizer Bunnies are trying to put down the deal. It has little to do with conservative caution or patriotism or anything else good - it is JUST raw political Sour Grapes.

Not so long ago, these worthies came out with a "White Paper" - authored by one of their stellar Think Tank experts, PhD and all - Penn State U and all - declaring that India had absolutely no need for nuclear power since India had all the electrical power she needed, now and for the future.

As Michael Jackson would have said, "Sad! Sad! Sooo Saaaaaad!"



I see your point enqyoob, and somewhat aware of swamy's antics...

I also understand its easy to stand up and say swatantra bharat, mahaan bharat, swadeshi bharat and what not behind some parochial agenda, or when it suits someone. But you'd be right in thinking that is not how I saw Swamy's words. I understand it is hard to see swamy any other way. OK, lets ditch him.

I can't say I am an expert; I can barely do atomic physics from memory... But this is a very complex deal, at least to my eye, where there is indeed an opportunity to jump many rungs. In just a few earlier posts, I was trying to put up an optimistic trust-based interpretation.

Its in the but verify stage that I get scared with what I see, really scared. Something that I tought was iron-clad isn't (reprocessing to be negotiated?), we sit here with this amazing feeling of America wanting to help us, when it has screwed more countries than helped, and so does not inspire confidence. Then something else. We, as a nation, are playing with fire here. I just wish I knew more of the people involved to calm my soul.

So pardon the drama here, but I am just resigning to a disappointment for what appears to be an increasingly dud of a deal in my mind...something that went from an amazing acceptance of india in the club, to a bare protection of our sovereignty. My, I think, how the tables turned.

But may be I'd be wrong, but I'd bet a dollar, call it a hunch now from reading up a few source so far, it aint gonna work.

S

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 07:17

Well.. there is a saying "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy". Also.,


"Don't Worry, Be Happy." and
"If u are warm and happy in a pile of (Pu) remember that things can be a lot worse".

So one can at least be happy knowing that there is solid precedent for feeling happy about this deal.
The reason the Americans are signing on, is because they see opportunities for American industry, and (they hope) for US foreign policy objectives in the MidEast and maybe Central and South Asia, and even some help warding off the Chinese takeover of South East Asia. So there is good reason to rationalize the American participation here. Besides, they can see, everyone can see, that the NPT is pretty dead, as well it should be, and it needs to be replaced. And this time they want to get it a bit more right, and see that it is better to have India at least non-interested, rather than actively antagonized.

Of course, ppl in India will do everything imaginable and much besides, to make a 600% mess of the whole thing. Corruption, agitations, strikes, poor quality control, diluted cement for reactor containment structure, poor welds, bribes in contracting, delays in laying roads, cheating in the road construction, a few murders, I bet we are going to see it all. But these are the price to be paid to bring India into the 20th century, so we can then at least enter the 21st by 2050.

I read another article today from CNN - about a guy selling solar panels and solar-charged lanterns to a very real Indian village - in Rajasthan. No road. No electric lines. 1 TV. 1 DVD player. Little water - no electric pumps - the women carry a pot of water every day.

You want to explain to those smiling children that it's OK for them to grow up without the opportunity to read at night (they have to work the fields all day) and get an education? Because it is more important for us to keep that option open to maybe test another 10 nookulear bums, and maybe to send Admirals to kiss the Iranians? That we should turn down the best opportunity for India to capture the moment, and get moving ahead? That we can wait another 30 years to be Officially Anointed by the Americans as a Nuclear Weapon Power?

I don't . That's the bottom line. There are limits to what should be done for the sake of ego and "H&D".

I think the deal signed is a good one, we fought the good fight, and we got all the important things. Now it is up to use to move and make the best of the opportunity, and not be hung up and paralyzed by fears about "hidden clauses" and American intentions. I always assume that American intentions are neither "good" nor "bad". Just practical.

Dr. Swamy is no more Indian than the humble guy, half crippled by polio, patiently teaching his fellow villagers how to use a solar lantern. Lighting up one face at a time.

Scofield
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 15 Jul 2007 00:11
Location: sipping champagne at jianggezhuang

Postby Scofield » 02 Aug 2007 07:39

enqyoob wrote:I don't . That's the bottom line. There are limits to what should be done for the sake of ego and "H&D".

True words N^3. sounds like words of a true patriot

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 02 Aug 2007 07:52

enqyoob wrote:You want to explain to those smiling children that it's OK for them to grow up without the opportunity to read at night (they have to work the fields all day) and get an education? Because it is more important for us to keep that option open to maybe test another 10 nookulear bums, and maybe to send Admirals to kiss the Iranians? That we should turn down the best opportunity for India to capture the moment, and get moving ahead? That we can wait another 30 years to be Officially Anointed by the Americans as a Nuclear Weapon Power?

I don't . That's the bottom line. There are limits to what should be done for the sake of ego and "H&D".


Bravo enqyoob!!! Very well said.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 02 Aug 2007 08:14

enqyoob wrote:
You want to explain to those smiling children that it's OK for them to grow up without the opportunity to read at night (they have to work the fields all day) and get an education? Because it is more important for us to keep that option open to maybe test another 10 nookulear bums, and maybe to send Admirals to kiss the Iranians? That we should turn down the best opportunity for India to capture the moment, and get moving ahead? That we can wait another 30 years to be Officially Anointed by the Americans as a Nuclear Weapon Power?

I don't . That's the bottom line. There are limits to what should be done for the sake of ego and "H&D".


The problem with your statement is that it tries to put words in people's mouth, to the extent as to suggest that they are any less for the benefit of people of this land. That they might somehow have less of an intent at getting to the prosperity of our nation than you do.

Imagine somebody said, you know these British are bringing in better goods to us than we have, I cannot deny that to my people. Duh!


You surely have read Dr. Kakodkar's talks or speeches? You want to tell him his fight's been about a few more bums or that that is what his work is about?

You're telling us we've fought a good fight, but you can't tell us what we've won. What is that exactly?

And the next time we get screwed by another country purporting to supply us with stuff from here to infinity at the ain moment, you're going to tell that child on the street that we lost our wars, or worse our freedom, or that other nations treat us with disdain because these guys decided to turn off the switch and we put all our trust in them?

Your making speeches here when you are a lot smarter than that. In particular, that there are two sides to this coin and that most people here probably recognize that.

Where's the line?

We got here, thanks to people who stood up for what is in India's interests, and if they can have it their way, we'd go a lot further. You want India to endup being a vassal of the states, not fine with me. This deal has had a fight, thank goodness for that, but it falls short.

S

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Aug 2007 08:38

the time is such ... whatever we ask unkle today will be conceded in some form or another. The issue with this 'deal' is that it largely rests on 'bilateral agreements' and consent from IAEA/NSG. ie we are not yet part of any formal grouping.

If unkle tomorrow decides to give us the ungal over Iran or something else, then Hyde provides any number of excuses to get out of this 'deal' (I guess Prasad/Chaudhry & later incidents was a dry run for practising this escape clause in real-life conditions) and pressure can be exerted on countries like Russia, France etc to renegage on their deals. In much the same way as India is being eased out of a relationship with Iran. Those like Swamy who talk of ditching Iran for the 'right price' today will have to swallow a similar pill tomorrow.

He said that India should sign the deal only if the US formally recognises India as a nuclear weapons power, and the concomitant rights of that status, then joining the US in the United Nations to make Iran accountable is worth the price in the larger national
security concerns
.


As for energy, US & groupies sponsored energy viz oil, nuclear (future) will always be an energy in short supply. Didn't Kissinger publicly state the policy of keeping countries in energy deficit and debt as a tool to control nations.

There shall always be other forms of energy around, much cheaper to harness and shall be used probably in military/strategic programs of a select few nations hidden away from public eyes. It is only energy for the masses that will be a problem since unkle with a defence budget more than that of entire world combined will ensure that a gun will be pointed at the head of anyone who works towards realizing any form of alternative cheaper energy for the masses. Because the giant lab experiment for unkle groupies that is the 'New World' the masses shall be confined to antiquated forms of energy much like the lab rats seen furiously running inside wheels. The rats ofcourse think there are no other options to make the wheels turn.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 02 Aug 2007 09:01

samuel wrote:And the next time we get screwed by another country purporting to supply us with stuff from here to infinity at the ain moment, you're going to tell that child on the street that we lost our wars, or worse our freedom, or that other nations treat us with disdain because these guys decided to turn off the switch and we put all our trust in them?

Your making speeches here when you are a lot smarter than that


samuelbhai,

Pardon me for this interjection into your so very nice discussion with enqyoob, but me thinks that you are making speeches here. Such as you are talking about getting screwed by another country. If you should lift your eyes and look at the Indian naval discussion thread, you will realize that India is getting screwed right this moment by the Russians on the Admiral Gorshkov issue. No amount of big bums can prevent a nation from being screwed, just as the Bangladesh Rifles have killed Indian BSF personnel in cold blood inspite of India having many big bums. So being screwed can happen with 100 bums. What makes you think it will stop after India has 2000 bums.

Then you talk about India being treated with disdain. Now, I dont know which part of the world you live in. But me thinks that if you travel outside India on an Indian passport as I did for many years to many countries, you will realize that Indians are treated with disdain. Firstly by being asked to get a visa for every single country in the world that they wish to visit. Maybe HK, Singapore, thailand have changed of late. But me thinks that respect should be accorded to the average Indian and not to some amorphous entity. That respect will happen if Indians want to stay in India and not leave India by the millions inspite of said visas. That is what India should be working towards, after having got in hand the number of bums or the material for the bums which guarantee its security. By all accounts including the calculations of esteemed and knowledgeable people on this thread, such material is in hand.

So my respectful question to you is. "What are you unhappy about"? Remember, 12,000 bums did not get the average Russian any respect nor did it save the USSR from imploding.

Harish
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 10:30
Location: Bharat

Postby Harish » 02 Aug 2007 09:18

Basic question here: given the high capital costs of constructing reactors and buying fuel, will the resulting energy be affordable? Is there a cost-benefit analysis online for a nuclear power plant against a coal-fired / hydropower plant of comparable capacity? What would be the break-even point, beyond which a nuclear plant is more cost-effective than the other plant? Something like after 10 years of continuous operation?

In a country where a small flyover attracts a heavy toll, nuclear power isn't going to come cheap, given that you spend billions in hard cash to build a viable infrastructure. Most Indians can just barely afford power tariffs as they exist today. So how is this expensive energy deal supposed to help our growth?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests