Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 04 Aug 2007

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

Post by vsudhir »

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:

Post by abhischekcc »

ashkrishna wrote:Considering the simple fact that by the time there are several foriegn reactors up and running in india, cutting off the power to india may backfire on them in more ways than one.
Name some.

N^3, I understand the examples you gave, save one. How do you compare nuclear energy with Coke formula? It looks like trivialising the issue.


---------------
Ok, fine. PPL have issues with the word Sell out. :) . Reminds me of something Churchill said - Don't blame on conspiracy, things you can blame on incompetence.

Should I feel warm and fuzzy if India' leaders are like Bahadur Shah Zafar, and not like Mir Jafar? :P
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Ok, fine. PPL have issues with the word Sell out. Smile . Reminds me of something Churchill said - Don't blame on conspiracy, things you can blame on incompetence.

Should I feel warm and fuzzy if India' leaders are like Bahadur Shah Zafar, and not like Mir Jafar? Razz
:rotfl: :rotfl:

Good one.

I've seen all too often the debate is 'hijacked' by the use of words like 'sellout'. The debate should be on how India might get screwed given the sterling past track record of our dilli billis.

Whether screwings happened deliberately or inadvertently is secondary, IMHO.
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

ok:
If you agree with me that india's geopolitical clout in the future will be many times it is now, then the west would need us much more desperately than it does now to counterbalance the dragon. And ofcourse, the middle class, what would happen if we just cut off some really big American company from a share of the pie, there would be many others simply waiting to fill the space. The nuclear deal will contribute in its own way in enabling us to reach an économic momentum' of sorts which inturn will make us an indispensible , the relatons with whom cannot be jeopardized at any cost. Disagreements may arise, I agree, but i dont think there is any chance of the carpet being pulled from under our feet.

Being 'seen' as a counterweight to china doesn't necessarily imply that we are being used as mere pawns in the greater geopolitical game. It means that we can extract our pound of flesh and keep the dragon at bay at the sam time.

JMT's
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

There has been one trend since all this stuff started on J18: Scicom has used the public system to hedge their position. Even if the current 'deal' may not pose such a hazard, it is the job of such people to sound the L-rekha limits.

I am firmly of the the opinion that had AK not made that much noise, the 123 would have been much more skewed towards the Hyde Act. IF this is true, it would provide the mind set of the current GoI. And, it would also provide a decent picture of the gap that existed even as late as March of 2007.

That gap has not been filled and the Scicom is still leery of this GoI.

Sell out may not be the right word. But, certainly this deal is not what India had in mind on J18. Has India got some thing? Yes. Is it worth it? Dunno, but considering Uncles stances in the past, am skeptical.

On the flip side, could India have done better? Yes, far better. From that perspective India has been let down.
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

Ok, fine. PPL have issues with the word Sell out.
''Sell out' somehow looks like dragging india down to the level of TSP-ish banana republics. Especially , when people started predicting doomsday and saying that India will soon be dismembered blah blah soon after the deal was signed. It should be noted that this is not the GOI which will continue till eternity and that many more GOI's shall come and go. To be cautious is good, but to be paranoid is a no no - is it not?

And one more thing...Will getting 'screwed' by unkil say 20 years from now have analogues with the 'tarapore screwing' or will it be even worse, Gurus?
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Sorry, was interrupted by work in the middle of that train of thought.

The responses don't hold up. Let me take Abcc's first.
Point wise:
1. >>But WHY do all desi top babus like him assume that India cannot protect the military/ strategic research program
The reason why people are pissed off with the intrusion is that we do not need that self satisfied sweeperpower to keep looking over our collective shoulder. The deal will add irritants to India's nuclear program (civilian, I might add) that are not needed.
There is no more intrusion into the strategic side, than there is, for instance, in Coca Cola setting up plants, and refusing to divulge the Secret Formula. This does not keep LIMCA and "77" and Rooh Afza from doing what they want to do, but may give consumers a choice, and hence force some thought and action on the part of LIMCA etc.

Then again, Coca Cola might buy out and close down all the others in the commercial sector, but the US can't do that to the Strategic nuclear program. That much is very very clear from the 123, Hyde or no Hyde.

OK, my apologies for the triviality of that example. The relevant issues here are competition, and the need for technology transfer. More on this below, related to something NRao posted.

"Irritants"? Yes, as in "BARC may not be the Ultimate in Nookulear Everything in India, and BARC's share of nuclear product commercialization (irradiation of food, materials research, nuclear medicine) might drop ... UNLESS there is a concerted effort to boost government-funded, "protected sector" research facilities and programs.
2. >>the "cooperation" consists of them giving up nuke weapons, and the P-5 giving them zilch in return
Exactly. If the NPT did not help the NNWS, then this 'NPT-like' deal will also not help us either. And, so the question remains, why the hell did we do this deal?
Because several things are spelled out here in a bilateral agreement, as opposed to the sweeping Snake Oil claims of the NPT.

3. >>So what these guys claim the US is not giving, may be something the US doesn't give anyone.
And, so the question remains, why the hell did we do this deal?
To open up the civilian/commercial nuclear sector without everyone yelling "Weaponization!"

Now the civilian/ commercial sector is DEMONSTRABLY just that - civilian/commercial. So obstacles in the way of moving THAT ahead, are removed.

The 123 agreement is critical because it opens the way for cooperation with others. IOW, it is equivalent to someone letting you into the marketplace and removing the Fatwa on you. If you really need, say, Maraging Steel (no idea what "maraging" is , but I've seen this term related to centrifuges) for a civilian plant, you can buy it, or, GE can bring it to the facility that they are building. No one need go to jail for trying to buy that, any more.

The very fact that people are complaining about difficulty of transferring fuel and money and equipment and technology from the commercial to the Strategic, is what is selling out India's interests to the foreigners/NPAs - by demonstrating that their concerns about Indian intentions were justified, at least if these types grabbed power in India.
The worry that I had is coming back. This deal is nothing but NPT is sheep's disguise. Our hard won nuclear/energy independance is about to be given away by the MMS team. This deal is still a sell out.

What the yanks could not force us to give up by becoming our enemies, they are now take away by pretending to be our friends.


All of us had, and most still have, that worry. What I want to understand is why this worry is not adequately compensated by the "don't worry, b happy" feeling that one gets by considering the strengths of our negotiating position. Surely if a Musharraf equivalent takes over in India, s(he) will sell the whole nation down the river. If the Peopre's Lepubric takes over through its agents the CPI(Maoists), then too we have a huge problem. If some silly JNU types take over, Allah save us.

But otherwise, I see no reason based on demonstrated experience to fear that future GOIs will be any less committed to Indian sovereignty and independence.

In the past we have had to do some desperate things because we let ourselves get maneuvered into desperate straits:

1. Devaluing the currency by a factor of about 25, just to get people to buy our produce and give us "hard currency" to buy food, to buy weapons to keep the Pakis out, and to buy oil to keep our economy at least walking, if not running.

This is because we didn't have enough industry to crank out the tractors, or anything else, and that's because we didn't have water and power, and that's because we didn't have power to pump the water or dig the canals..

We didn't have energy self-sufficiency.

The 123 supposedly sets us moving down a path to energy self-sufficiency. For the next upmpteen years, we are still dependent on foreign nuclear fuel, but maybe by then, because we got ourselves into the Fusion scam, we may actually have fusion reactors in the works. Or, GE and Westinghouse will invest a lot of their profits in building solar farms and wind farms and biodiesel farms. Maybe the private-sector work ethic and IAEA accounting/ safety/security standards of the nuclear industry will permeate to other Indian industry.

Will GE and Westinghouse keep importing every nut and bolt for the reactors? Or will they figure out that getting the Maraging Steel etc. built in India is a lot cheaper, and get GOTUS approval to do so? Will they then want "cheap" engineers and technicians hired locally to do the hi-tech metal-work? Will they then want local colleges to set up training and education programmes?

Will some graduates of these go get jobs in the Protected Sector? Why not?

More after reading NRao's points again.

....OK, here I go...
By separating civlian and strategic there are two things that happen:

1) The civilian side can never subsidize the strategic directly, and
2) The way it is set up, outsiders can more easily make the civilian side so cheap that the strategic side - over a long period of time - become prohibitively expensive

Dr, Prasad's article is not an isolated incidence. AK IIRC used the word "Satisfactory", when asked about this deal.



Let's consider "civilian side can never subsidize the strategic directly"

Agree, since you used the term "subsidize.. directly". Right now, that is far from being the case. The strategic side is subsidizing the civilian side, so funds that SHOULD go for strategic development are sucked into funding a highly inefficient, technologically handicapped, capital-starved civilian energy business. And you have to put in all the security of a military facilities on every civilian facility because there is no separation.

So the separation is AT WORST, a washout, no subsidy either way. Now let us take the word "directly". A huge investment in nuclear energy in India will bring up thousands of local businesses that can deal with all the myriad things needed for this industry. Don't you think this will cut costs for the strategic program? I'm talking about the little things first:
1. The cute skull&cross-bones signs saying "Danger! Ionizing Radiation" in three languages with the even cuter Bohr Atom model on them.
2. Electrified fencing.
3. Trained Dobermanns.
4. Long flat-bed trucks for heavy machinery
5. Rubber boots.
6. Glove-boxes...
7. Tubes to handle fuel rods.
8. Emergency Notification Systems
9. Radiation Treatment facilities (I mean to treat patients who have suffered high doses)
10. Miles and miles of pipes that don't leak. Fittings that fit. Valves that don't leak.
11. Yellow radiation-protection suits with bunny tails

Eventually, it will be Maraging Steel, high-precision bearings, lead curtains, alpha particle sources, Geiger counters, etc. etc. etc.

Most of the cost of "strategic" programs is not the cost of refining nuclear fuel - it's the hi-precision machinery, the fasteners, the concrete, the pressure vessels, and huge amounts of plumbing, etc. All Indian programs will benefit from indigenous production of these things.

There will be a huge increase in number of ppl trained in nuclear engg. and technology, AND in power generation. There will be jobs for Indian kids graduating from engineering school in other than IT or BPO or sales. Small entrepreneurs will come up. Do you think there is no benefit to the strategic sector? At least, the geeks there will have something interesting to go into, other than foreign graduate school. In the 60s, BARC offered the hottest jobs - they recruited those considered the brightest and the best - which is why India survived and the Indian nuclear establishment advanced as far as it has. No reason why those times can't come back.

GE and Westinghouse will pay all those bribes, which will lead to a boom in the jewelry and house construction and luxury car sales in India, all leading to increased taxes (well, in the case of jewelry, only proceeds from raids since sales tax is a bad word in jewelry stores).

GE and Westinghouse will have to pay taxes, and part of those taxes will go into Strategic Programs.

Finally,
2) The way it is set up, outsiders can more easily make the civilian side so cheap that the strategic side - over a long period of time - become prohibitively expensive


If this is a main reason for the concerns of senior desi types, then I say that a stronger endorsement for the agreement cannot be imagined. What you are saying is that nuclear power generation in India will be cheap and efficient, and the development needed to get there will be done by outsiders with not a penny going from the Strategic program to do it - leaving the strategic side free to concentrate its resources on Strategic programs. And I should be unhappy about this? Why, if I am not a Paki or a NonProllotullah?

This, Abcc, is where the Coca Cola analogy becomes relevant. LIMCA and 77 are screaming because Coca Cola may force them to consider selling their stuff in clean bottles, using clean water, and putting a little of their profit back into R&D. And they are screaming because CocaCola doesn't just give them the Secret Formula instead of forcing them to shell out money for taste tests, chemical labs etc.

But in this case, LIMCA and 77 are safe in that their plants are needed for National Security. So they don't even have to worry about marketing everywhere any more, and can concentrate their efforts on selling to the military. The threat IS there, though, that if they keep selling dirty water in dirty bottles and spreading Hepatitis B, then the military might yank their chains real hard.

Maybe the better example is Hindustan Motors screaming about Honda being allowed in, and not being forced to give the designs for the Accord straight to the Ambassador line. But I don't want to insult the Indian nuclear establishment, whom I consider to be heroes and heroines.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 06 Aug 2007 19:24, edited 2 times in total.
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:

Post by abhischekcc »

Nrao. To add to your words - the best thing I can say about this deal is that we could have done better.


-------------
OT, where is Johann nowadays? MI6 reassigned him moderate the Chinese forums? :P
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Disturbing implications of 123 Agreement - By Rajiv Sikri

Post by Prabu »

Disturbing implications of 123 Agreement - By Rajiv Sikri

What is the GOI response to this ??? Any BR comments folks ? I think this summarises all the negative implications to a fairly large extent.

The only worry is we got this deal (!) after making so much noise ?? Let me ask why ??? WHY GOI is not negotiated (tough) like Mittal, in first place ?? GOI must explain and give satisfactory reply to all the implications spelt out in the above Article. or else REJECT the deal in parliment.
Last edited by Prabu on 06 Aug 2007 19:12, edited 2 times in total.
ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Post by ksmahesh »

We didn't have energy self-sufficiency.
However should we provide this lack of energy as a handle to others to let them blackmail us. It seems that we are simply shifting some of our dependence of from arab oil to NSG atom.

The GOTUS has a lot of freedom of action i.e. can cite "supreme national interest" or some flimsy breach in safeguard to break the promise of fuel supplies. As people already pointed out it doesnot have to take all of reactor back but just the critical components and what do we get in return a vague promise of compensation (with no time limit).

The only effective measures will be if our netas pass Indian version of Hyde^^10. BUt how likely it is? Looking on past experiences not very.

Inspite of this I am all for this deal because I believe one cannot live in pessimism. In case things turn become bad we will have to face them.
However one thing is certain energy for few years (in worst case) is better than no energy at all.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Ambassador Naresh Chandra's caution is something that should be written in giant letters on banners in South Block. BUT...

I don't believe Ronen Sen is any less nationalistic than Naresh Chandra, and is in fact a heck of a lot more articulate and smooth. So Mr. Chandra should rest assured that the standards are rising, not falling, in India's leadership (OK, let me go put my head under a cold water tap - I must be drunk)
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Post by Prabu »

YES ksmahesh !

I am of firm opinion,

1) We need Indian hyde, if not today, tommorw it wil be of great advantage !

2) Amend th econstitution , to ratify all international pacts with parliment.

3) Also amend the constitution to bar, from people of foreign origin ( got citizen ship by registration and NOT by birth) CAN NOT occupy high offices.

Let us send LALU & J. JAYALALITHA to negotiate a revision in the draft 123. ( Though these leaders are known as tainted, they had the"guts" to say and implement what they though its right !)
:lol:
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Let us send LALU & J. JAYALALITHA


AllahoAkbar! Imagine nuclear reactors as safe as that dam on the Kerala-TN border. But the reactor domes at Kalpakkam may get cute names like Jaya and Lalitha. Finally something worthy of their size and grandeur. And India will become the #1 exporter of Irradiated Cattle feed.

A1 Kannukali Aharam will now come in lead-lined containers.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Johaan caught and bowled John Snow.

Dr. Tim LBW John Snow
nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Post by nkumar »

1) Can someone cleanly say that this deal is not going to be a hindrance to testing in future (we should and must test to prefect and improve our weapons)? Let us say the GE's reactor supplies power to some critical industry, then is it going to be a hindrance in testing? Can Unkil not blackmail us?

2) Can some pro-deal guys refute point-by-point, the concerns of Rajiv Sikri, BC and Dr. Prasad?

3) What about the IP issues by placing the future civilian breeders under safeguards?

IMO, if GoI and DAE sits together, they can look for a way to fast-forward the 3-stage programme, infuse as much money as possible. I think it will be a lot cheaper to do it indigenously then the import $$$ reactors.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

prabhu, try getting them to be our hydes?.. one plays with his balls in other's court while the other one has no balls at all. :twisted:
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Post by Prabu »

YES ksmahesh !

I am of firm opinion,

1) We need Indian hyde, if not today, tommorw it wil be of great advantage !

2) Amend the constitution , to ratify all international pacts with parliment.

3) Also amend the constitution to bar, from people of foreign origin ( got citizen ship by registration and NOT by birth) from occupying high offices.

Let us send LALU & J. JAYALALITHA to negotiate a revision in the draft 123. ( Though these leaders are known as tainted, they had the"guts" to say and implement what they though its right !)
:lol:

HEY RAM, Save India !
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Post by Prabu »

Enqub ,


Today Lallu is a role model for IIM's and a Americans want to learn from lallu's success story of Indian railways !! :D
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

folks>> dont irritate the likes of Rangudu, we are going in circles.

1) Test at your own peril any day before hyde act or no hyde act

2) Test to show that our Maal works as well as gang of P5 (BC contention)

3) 123 is the count down to IAEA inspectors frequent miles logging.

4) MMS and Company being bean counters want Powe by cheap peggybacking on unkils coat tails.... remember MMS quivering in his boots (pyjamas) at the thought of PVN testing....

5) Scicom toungue tied and speaking forked tounges not knowing what do with bunch of politicos who cant make up their mind to go swaraj way or chemcha /chela way


In any case we are at true cross roads
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

John Snow wrote: 4) MMS and Company being bean counters want Powe by cheap peggybacking on unkils coat tails.... remember MMS quivering in his boots (pyjamas) at the thought of PVN testing....
If it was only quivering, meaning he weighed the pros/cons, I would have had at least some respect for MMS. My gut feel is that its more than that.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

So much conphusion!!! Deal ya no deal? Sell-out, traitor etc. etc. And all of this based on very little in terms of actual facts. The naysayers among the scientific community such as Dr. Prasad who have been accorded almost deity like status here are mere mortals who are looking out for their own self interest!!!.

First the facts.

1. India has more than enough uranium for its strategic program if the only use of domestic uranium is to make bums.

2. If India wants to go in for large scale generation of power however, India has to wait for the third stage to begin its journey. Even according to the champion naysayer Dr. Prasad the AHWR will come online in 2037. So so build let us say 20 units will take another 13 years i.e. 2050. The constraint is not money, it is lack of driver fuel for loading up the AHWRs.

3. India's total electricity generation capacity is something like 130GW, +/- 15GW. Of that nuke plants commissioned and currently under construction account for 6900MW of which the separation plan will keep 2350MW out of safeguards (other than the research reactors and the FBRs). Keep that 2350 MW figure in mind as the naysayers talk about 90-95% of India's nuke capacity being safeguarded 25 years from now.

4. If electricity generation is the only concern and pollution is not an issue, be like the Chinese who in the last 1 year alone have added 80 GW of capacity of which 52GW is coal. Chinese nuke plant contributions to the civilian grid is similar to India, about 4.5 GW. And China's total generation capacity as of December 2006 was about 600GW.

5. If the only concern that the vaunted deified scientific community has is that India's strategic options are being forclosed by this deal, the simplest solution is to close down all civilian nuke generation in India for the next 40 years so that scarce domestic uranium will be used only for strategic purposes. And keep only research activities ongoing for the 3rd stage. 40 years from today when the FBRs have produced enough material to start loading a decent number of AHWRs, recommence civilian nuke generation. But for that to happen, hundreds if not thousands of babus and members of this vaunted scientific community will become redundant. Catch them shooting themselves in the foot by erasing their own jobs for the overall national good!!!.

6. Furthermore for power generation via coal to really increase to China like numbers, GOI has to take on the entrenched mafia and trade unions in the nationalized coal mines and the farmers lobby who are used to free power. Neither the UPA nor the NDA have the testacular fortitude to take on both of these entities.

So the bottom line is that nobody is really talking the facts including the scientific community. Everybody is looking after their own fiefdoms.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Some words of wisdom from Mr. B. Raman:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... aman&sid=1
There is a need for a three-track approach. First, to keep pressing ahead in our quest for nuclear self-sufficiency so that we can produce one day all the nuclear power we need through our own resources and efforts. Second, to force open the doors to international nuclear commerce so that we can buy our requirements of power stations and related technologies till such time as we reach the goal of self-sufficiency. The recently-concluded agreement with the US is one of the initial steps in our attempt to break open the doors, which are till now shut against us. And third, to keep ourselves mentally and in other ways prepared to meet a situation in which the doors might again be closed against us before we reach the goal of self-sufficiency. A comprehensive exercise to cater to these three tracks is the need of the hour.
The following is true even here on this thread....everyone wants talking points "for" and "against" the deal, as if that clarifies the muddy waters any less.
Unfortunately, the national debate on this subject has got stuck in a "for or against" syndrome. If one is for it, one can think of dozens of reasons for supporting it. If one is against it, one can equally find dozens of reasons for opposing it.
More than the agreement itself, the circumstances surrounding the negotiations which preceded its finalisation and the changing attitude to the US amongst the present political leaders in power in New Delhi and the small group of officials and non-official intellectuals advising them should be a matter of concern to public opinion. The negotiations and the background against which these were conducted brought out certain defining characteristics of the leaders and their advisers. Firstly, the lack of transparency. All governments in India have tended to be less transparent than they ought to have been, but none has been more opaque in policy-making than the present one. Second, the noticeable contempt for those expressing reservations about the present policy of the government towards the US in general and this agreement in particular.
Shri Raman's questions in the end seem a little weird since it assumes that China has a lot of clout in the NSG...IIRC, China joined the NSG only 3 years ago or less...
The US has ruled out any civil nuclear co-operation agreement with Pakistan on the ground that India is a special case. Will Beijing, piqued by perceptions of India letting itself be used by the US against China, treat India as a special case in the NSG and agree to lifting the restrictions on India without simultaneously lifting those on Pakistan? These are questions which have not been adequately addressed in the debate on the US-induced new directions in our foreign policy.

If the Indian netas and babus do not place the three-stage program on a super-fast track, and keep the program well-funded and healthy until India gets the desired results out of it, then everyone's worst fears here will come true, and it will not be the fault of the US or 123 if that happens.

But then, we are talking about the same bunch of people who have done NOTHING as power project after power project died over the years and decades, forcing India to make tough choices like 123 now. Will they change their nature and ensure India sees the successful completion of the 3-stage program, as opposed to the foot-dragging and penchant for pinching pennies, and losing the big picture once all the thieves in neta/babu-dom start queueing up to line their pockets?

If we look at the American Draft of the FMCT which completely ignores military arsenals of weapon states --- the concern of the US has moved to closing all the loopholes that could lead to a JDAM. I wager that China's attempts to open new loop holes -- in order to continue ongoing chinese nuclear proliferation/"aid" to terrorist/rogue regimes like Pakistan and NoKo -- will be met with resistance by the G-8.
Last edited by Rye on 06 Aug 2007 21:32, edited 1 time in total.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

abhischekcc wrote:
ksmahesh wrote:Alok_N was sadly banned by admins for protesting against arbitrary locking of the discussion on religion topic.

:( :( :(
He wasn't merely protesting. He was being obnoxious and abusing everybody around. If you have read some of his posts, they are not really the wordsof a man who knows how to respect other people.

He helped himself out of the forum.
I disagree. He did go berserk...but only at the very end. He was all right for the most part. He always respects others. I have known him and Vulkan over 6 years.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

enqyoobji,

All that is too short term thinking.

Here is my thinking:

1. Uncle is scared to compete in the nuclear civlian sector. The US needs to drop GNEP to prove that they want to open this market - civilian nuclear energy production
2. There are Indian Netas that are willing to compromise more than they should
3. Indian middle class card is being played extremely poorly - Netas need to wake up. Indian middle class is ready to be stand-alone. India lacks visionaries in these fields
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

NRao,

w.r.t. leveraging the Middle class, it would appear that pushing more people into the Indian middle class is the need of the hour --- large numbers are still not part of the middle class.....no matter how we look at it, this requires a lot of energy and investment, and the Indian infracstructure is falling apart at the seams even for the current numbers in the middle class... hopefully, most/all such investment will be from the private sector into the Indian economy, rather than dying/sick PSUs kept alive by an incompetent and corrupt labour union.
pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Post by pradeepe »

Rye wrote:
Shri Raman's questions in the end seem a little weird since it assumes that China has a lot of clout in the NSG...IIRC, China joined the NSG only 3 years ago or less...
So what exactly do the chinese supply in the NSG. The locks to the nuclear almairah? Latest 7 levers stuff. How convenient.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Nuclear deal: India has no leverage

A N Prasad | August 06, 2007 | 18:53 IST

Ever since it was released on August 3, the much-awaited text of the India-United States nuclear deal has been profusely commented upon and covered in the media.

It is obvious the text has tried to accommodate diverging interests and constraints of both the parties by clever use of language -- to give an illusory impression that the concerns are duly reflected.

For the sake of public comfort, both parties are saying loudly that they are free to hold on to their respective rights and legal positions.

It means hardly anything as far as India is concerned. Up against the Hyde Act standing like a Rock of Gibraltar, India has no leverage to force any of the issues during the innumerable consultations suggested in the text.

In fact, our case was compromised to a large extent when this American act was passed, our prime minister's assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.

We are now in effect reduced to a mere recipient State mandated by the Hyde Act to carry out a set of dos and don'ts and to strive to earn a good behaviour report card to become eligible to continue receiving what the Americans can offer.

In the process, slowly but surely, they can gain control and remotely drive our nuclear programmes in the long run.

This deal, through the Hyde Act, gives far too many opportunities to penetrate deep into and interfere even in our three-stage programme to slow down the realisation of our goal of harnessing our vast resources of thorium for long-term energy security.

Two points in support of this, which have largely missed notice:

One, the revelation by Nicholas Burns, US under secretary of state during his interview to the Council on Foreign Relations: 'It had been an easy "strategic" choice for Washington when faced with the question -- should we isolate India for the next 35 years or bring it in partially now ( under safeguards inspection) and nearly totally in the future.'

Two, Article 16.2 of the text says the 123 Agreement shall remain in force for a period of 40 years and at the end of this initial period each party may terminate by giving six month's notice. There is no in-built provision for terminating before 40 years even if we were to suffer for any reason in the implementation of the deal.

These 40 years are expected to cover the period by which we intend to take thorium utilisation to a commercial reality. A coincidence?

It is naive to judge the merits of the deal based purely on the language of the text. The underlying undercurrents and intentions of the controlling party are important and cannot be wished away as hypothetical or as their internal matter when they do actually have serious repercussions on our long-term interests.

There has been a careful balancing of US commercial interests with the goal of bringing India into the non-proliferation hold, an American obsession ever since the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into existence in 1970.

There have been overt suggestions in the Hyde Act to the American administration to not only attempt to cap but also try to eventually roll back our strategic programme and report to the US Congress.

Try they will; but whether we are smart enough to thwart their designs or they manage to succeed -- given the tremendous access they get through this deal � is something time will tell.

Let me turn to some of the most contentious issues that have not been satisfactorily resolved.

Reprocessing

This has been stated to be the most hotly debated issue. Let me therefore deal with it in some detail in simple terms to put things in perspective.

Reprocessing is at the core of our three-stage nuclear power programme. It is the interface between the first and the second stage and again between the second and the third stage.

In the first step, it facilitates extracting plutonium from the spent uranium fuel and feeding to the fast breeder reactors in the second stage as fuel -- where thorium fuel is also introduced.

When thorium is converted into fissile uranium in the fast reactors, the same is extracted by reprocessing to be fed into third stage reactors where large-scale thorium utilisation occurs.

It was once estimated that with the limited resources of uranium in the country more than 350,000 MW of electricity could be produced through thorium utilisation, ensuring long-term energy security. The steady progress India is making with starting the construction of the first 500 Mwe prototype fast breeder reactor is an envy of many in the advanced world.

Recognising the key role of reprocessing, development activities were started as early as 1959 -- much before even the first nuclear power reactor became operational at Tarapur in 1969.

While the first power reactor was imported from the US, the first reprocessing facility was built entirely through indigenous efforts and went into operation in 1965.

The irony is, the US -- knowing fully well our four decades of experience in reprocessing and aware of its importance in our three-stage programme -- has sought to create impediments and make us beg for reprocessing consent, that too after accepting us as strategic partner.

What hypocrisy! Should we call this nuclear cooperation or non-cooperation?

Is it not obvious that their intention is to place hurdles on our thorium-utilisation programme right from the beginning?

In fact, even though there is what is called a fast reactor nuclear fuel cycle, not a word is mentioned in the Agreement on fast-reactor coop eration. The text calls for all future fast breeder reactors to be put under the civilian list for applying safeguards in perpetuity -- just because plutonium extracted from imported uranium spent fuel is fed into these reactors.

It is a pity our negotiators have chosen not to pursue extending the cooperation into the area of fast reactors at least to the extent that we should be able to access the international market for equipment and components which otherwise have to be produced by Indian industry with considerable effort

The way the reprocessing issue has been resolved certainly does not give any comfort. What has been agreed to is consent in principle, with the arrangements and procedures to be agreed in the future. Having offered a dedicated facility for reprocessing imported fuel, we should have got unconditional upfront consent to be made effective on satisfactory conclusion of safeguards.

The intent of the American legislation is to deny reprocessing rights to NPT countries that don't already have this technology. We cannot be equated with Japan, which�� Burns reportedly said has been used as a model for resolving this issue. I can say from personal knowledge that Japan was totally unhappy in dealing with the US while negotiating procedures and arrangements in the late 1970s for their reprocessing plant.

We should watch out.

Also, in the entire fuel cycle, application of safeguards on reprocessing is the toughest. The point of concern is that Burns keeps harping that the dedicated facility, though not mentioned in the text, has been offered by India as a state-of-the-art facility. This is a possible conflict point during the consultations on safeguard-feasibility, as there is no reference standard on the design of such a facility in the world. Information on the less than a handful of facilities operating in the world at present is kept secret and not shared.

Perhaps the dedicated plant we have offered will be the first plant to be wide open to the outside world. The US will definitely have a good look at it!

Being a dedicated facility committed to full safeguards, it should be our endeavour to obtain special items of equipment and hardware components from the international market.

Full civil nuclear cooperation

In spite of the prime minister's assurances, the issue of full civil cooperation has not been resolved in our favour. The text has allowed an unfair definition of this term, with the result that embargoes will continue on the most complex part of the fuel cycle facilities -- such as enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water.

Though we may not need to import technology as such, there should have been an opportunity to access the world market for specific low quantity dual-use items which otherwise have to be produced by Indian industry.

This historic deal not being able to get rid of sanctions, despite India taking on a whole lot of burdens on safeguards and other aspects, is a big disappointment.

Testing

This is a much-talked-about topic, and any further discussion is like flogging a dead horse.

Suffice to say, irrespective of what is said or unsaid, we have surrendered our decision -- though not the legal right -- for all practical purposes. Talk of multi-layered consultations and actions is all an eyewash and public relations exercise.

Fallback safeguarded safeguards

It is surprising that such a hypothetical issue has found specific mention in the text, contrary to the prime minister's assurance. There is every likelihood that this can be invoked. Though it is the bounden duty of the International Atomic Energy Agency to apply safeguards in member States in a cost effective manner, there is a large inflow of extra-budgetary grants for this activity.

With a huge spurt in safeguards load from India, whose cost substantially has to be met by additional extra-budgetary grants, there could well be a move in future to create a situation that due to paucity of funds the IAEA puts its hands up for the US to step in.

At that point the US inspectors will roam around in our nuclear plants, irrespective of what our prime minister has assured.

The bottom line

With the proposed deal we have in our hands, one statement baffles: 'This Agreement is between two States possessing advanced nuclear technology, both Parties having the same benefits and advantages.'

How I wish this had been really true! It is hard to find any point on which we have the leverage to dictate with a position of strength in this deal, in spite of being rightly labelled as a State possessing advanced nuclear technology.

Dr A N Prasad, a distinguished nuclear scientist and an international authority on the issue of safeguards, is former director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.

http://www.rediff.com///news/2007/aug/06guest1.htm

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

Post by enqyoobOLD »

This is Chicken Little, First Class:
With a huge spurt in safeguards load from India, whose cost substantially has to be met by additional extra-budgetary grants, there could well be a move in future to create a situation that due to paucity of funds the IAEA puts its hands up for the US to step in.

At that point the US inspectors will roam around in our nuclear plants, irrespective of what our prime minister has assured.


OTOH, it is QUITE likely that IAEA inspectors may be Pakis. Or vely vely fliendry neighbols.

Why is is likely that these US inspectors will roam around inside military facilities unless India allows them?

Also, if Prasad is keen on getting technology from the US, then why is it not OK for US inspectors to roam around in plants basically supplied by US-based companies?

Dr. Prasad's statement reveals much that makes it sad to say that this is a statement from a top Indian expert on these matters. His credibility is rapidly approaching zero.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Most of the objections to the current 123 agreement stem from the fact that in the event India were to test Nukes then India could be bound by Hyde and Jekyl Act. Other objections like reprocessing etc are subject to further agreements. Let us take the first case: India tests a nuke then what are the scenarios? The 123 agreement could be terminated and India has to return US origin nuke material and processing equipment. The US has to meanwhile ensure that India gets alternate supplies. My contention is in such cases the US president will think long and hard about “returning stuffâ€
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Dr. A.N. Prasad's article:
At that point the US inspectors will roam around in our nuclear plants, irrespective of what our prime minister has assured.
The separation of facilities makes such an eventuality unlikely without the GoI explicitly allowing Inspectors of various sorts to roam around *non-civilian* nuclear facilities, so I fail to understand the concern of Dr. AN Prasad. Is he saying that the GoI is incompetent to the extent that they cannot enforce the 123 agreement citing local laws that India has no choice but to obey international laws? If such is indeed true, as Dr Prasad claims, and GoI/India lacks the spine to defend whats ours.........should we try to blame those who would like to replace said (non existent) spine with a coat stand?
Last edited by Rye on 06 Aug 2007 22:30, edited 1 time in total.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

bala wrote:
The US has to meanwhile ensure that India gets alternate supplies.
This is a lie...the US will not do any such thing even if it has agreed to do so in paper in the 123. OTOH, such an eventuality indicates a more fundamental break down in the India-US relations, so 123 being thrown into the dustbin by India and the US (as it would be) is going to be one of the smaller problems in the big picture.

If relations between India and the US break down, the US will just walk away. US will operate with India under the assumption that it can walk away, and so India is completely responsible for any and all backup planning.

If the Indian govt. officials are believing US "promises" on such things such as "helping India acquire fuel supplies" -- as opposed to following the 3 policy guidelines outlined by Shri B. Raman above, in order to remain in control, maybe all the whining and moaning on this thread is not without reason.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Enqube - What do you say about this. Will you club it with BJP now?

VP Singh rejects N-deal draft

Statesman News Service
NEW DELHI, Aug 5: The Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation deal continues to evoke suspicion among political parties. The draft agreement was today rejected by the former Prime Minister, Mr V P Singh, who said it was a "charter for dependence on the US."
Instead of going in for a "hollow" agreement with the US, the former Prime Minister favoured India setting up more thermal power plants using imported coal.
He said the draft 123 agreement to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal gave Washington "unfettered" rights to terminate the pact and seek return of all material supplied by it.
Raising the issue of financial viability, Mr Singh said the government should make public the cost involved in the use of nuclear power and the percentage of energy requirement it would fulfill in the future. He said "Currently, nuclear power comprises just three per cent of the total power produced in the country. I have been told by experts that this figure would go up to seven per cent once this deal is operationalised."
Mr Singh said the deal would make India dependent on the US for uranium supplies for power plants, "surrender" the rights to conduct an atomic test and reprocess spent fuel and open up nuclear facilities for American inspection.
"We can instead import coal which can be done without any conditionalities and set up thermal power plants along the coastline," he said.

http://thestatesman.org/page.news.php?c ... &id=165268
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Since when has VP Singh been anything less than a politicking lowlife like many other politicos who see all issues in terms of endearing their vote-banks to themselves? The next biggest contribution he can do to India and Indians is to kick the bucket.
Last edited by Rye on 06 Aug 2007 22:46, edited 1 time in total.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

This is a lie...the US will not do any such thing even if it has agreed to do so in paper in the 123.
If that is the case the entire 123 is a lie. We have to assume that the US can do anything including creating the 123 agreement in the first place. After going through such trouble if there is no tangible benefit then what is the point of 123 agreement. No, I dont think the US is non-serious about this issue. There is some merit in why it pursued this path. Some claim it is to shackle India. When you are playing with the big boys you got to play smart and take the punches as they come. No point being a wuss. There is nothing which states that India cannot come up with their version of Hyde and Jekyl Act which states that when India tests then all nuke material in Civilian systems is under impound i.e. National Emergency and Security Act.

Sri B. Raman is great at enunciating principles but then he straddles the fence without showing a way forward.

Also another point that has not been discussed is why BJP committed India to a moratorium on Nuke Test. This I feel is the sole reason for all the major paper roadblocks in the 123 agreement. Bush et al keep harping on this point. They want moratorium to hold.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

"We can instead import coal which can be done without any conditionalities and set up thermal power plants along the coastline," he said.


Gets better and better... 8) Let's start breaking ground for those coal-fired plants, and cut deals with ENRON to guarantee payment in dollars for the coal. I am sure no one has thought of this idea b4... :roll:
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

moratorium on Nuke Test


Wasn't the Morarjithorium presented, thoroughly debated, and passed by widespread acclaim in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha before it was presented to the world, and didn't we get immediate widespread rewards for the same from the NSG??? :roll:

Or.. was that the Morarji_Cola Light Yellow Water Urinium? :?:
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Manny, actually the Net worm creeped up more, and the BR fusion reactor was getting on him. He was Dr. Octavius, and then the super duper fusion worms made him Doc Ock. He went down in the religious river along with the fusion reactor, and Peter Parker Jagan finally rescued his girlfriend BR-inie from being fused into an unstoppable & secret fusion device.

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

Post by Rye »

bala wrote:
Also another point that has not been discussed is why BJP committed India to a moratorium on Nuke Test. This I feel is the sole reason for all the major paper roadblocks in the 123 agreement. Bush et al keep harping on this point. They want moratorium to hold.

That is not necessarily true --- what I am trying to point out is that the deal can only be a guideline when US-India relations are good. If we remove the assumption that US-India relations will be on the upswing, then the promises made by the US under such "friendly" pre-conditions are all complete lies. This is because the US certainly does not expend political capital in a situation where doing so is not helping its agenda....and making things easy for India will not be in its agenda if Indo-US relations are tanking in other spheres.


I like to think of the 123 deal in terms of "boundary conditions" -- the points in the deal fall into at least two buckets (maybe more, please feel free to add):

a) "Normal conditions": The part of the laws that specifies the rights and obligations should India and US remain friendly (not overtly hostile) states -- this would depend as much on US's behaviour in the future as on India's behaviour, though we can bet that the US will be responsible for any breakdown in the relationship if it allows the cold warriors and India-baiters to push policy in the future.

b)"boundary conditions": the point where both the US and India will have to re-evaluate their relationship --- this does not mean much in a +ve or -ve way since a re-evaluation can also cause both sides to conclude that staying the course is better. One example of such an event is the nuclear test that gets everyone all worked up into a tizzy....another is US overtly attacking Iran and forcing the Indian govt. to decline and the resulting heartburn on both sides....and I am sure there are all sorts of unforeseeable circumstances that we cannot foresee for obvious reason...

Most of the genuine concerns here are w.r.t. the rules that come under (b), and as we all know, there is every chance of things going non-linear in the boundary conditions such as "China feeds Pakistan, Pakistan tests, India tests in return, American invokes Hyde"....or other combinations of eventualities that lead to the boundary condition.....clearly, there can be no guarantees when we operate under such conditions....just like the game of "Go", we build a variety of capabilities that improve our ability to resist outsiders from imposing their will on what's essentially ours.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Acharya wrote:

VP Singh rejects N-deal draft

"We can instead import coal which can be done without any conditionalities and set up thermal power plants along the coastline," he said.

http://thestatesman.org/page.news.php?c ... &id=165268
So V.P. Singh like a true politician has decided to take the easy way out as I said in my post above:
6. Furthermore for power generation via coal to really increase to China like numbers, GOI has to take on the entrenched mafia and trade unions in the nationalized coal mines and the farmers lobby who are used to free power. Neither the UPA nor the NDA have the testacular fortitude to take on both of these entities.
Keep the vote banks happy and avoid tackling the real issue of trade unionism and mafia control over the coal mines run by a corrupt and inefficient PSU while keeping the large reserves of domestic coal underground and take the easy and risky option of importing coal.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

It is interesting, perhaps, to note that the nuclear deal with Japan, per Burns, had over 400 pages. Almost no commitments were made in the China-US agreement, which is a much shorter document. India's is slightly longer than China's. If one were to go by the length of these documents alone, one wonders whether it is inversely proportional to how close an ally the US considers the other side to be and, similarly, inversely proportional to the degree of commitment it wishes to make to the bilateral cooperation.
As a measure of how much Washington acceded to India on the reprocessing issue, which he identified as the one which 'bedeviled' talks, Burns pointed out that Japan and Euraton alone among US allies had been accorded reprocessing rights, and the agreement with Japan ran into 400 pages.
400 pages! Now there's a deal! Just imagine, how thoroughly they must've covered every issue. What was the need though. Being such good allies that could they not write a one-pager with everything on trust?

A 40 year hook with such meager commitments...opening the door, my foot.
Locked