Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 04 Aug 2007

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 02:49

determining our weapons program is already happening by the unkil men, and it will not stop even after decades of having a civilian nuclear power duly signed after this agreement.

there is no way any fool can expect the numbers to remain constant and not a % of the "NFU doctrine based" minimum deterrence level needed for our program.

this fear is good in the sense, it increases our strategic deterrence value even more higher, after the deal.

of course, all this onlee if our 800 pounders show a smiling buddha face!

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 843
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Postby Manny » 07 Aug 2007 02:52





So much for the lefty liberals! Pffft!

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

Postby Rye » 07 Aug 2007 02:54

SaiK wrote:
We could be the new great power p6 negotiator for the middle-east problems. on the brighter side, we can increase our stake in Iran and Iraq oil lines for more years to come.


It never helps to be the "middleman" in a situation where one does not already control all the levers -- being a middleman without any leverage is a thankless job.

All India has to do is "push its national energy interests" of securing oil and gas from Iran via the IPI -- whatever Iran does to commit geopolitical suicide is not India's problem. India can start rethinking the IPI once it becomes clear that the US is not going to be weaseling out its commitments w.r.t. 123, and we won't know about that for a few years from now.

India's interest would be to see that Iran does not come under attack, while at the same time not supporting Iran's military nuke weapons program.
Last edited by Rye on 07 Aug 2007 03:07, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Rye » 07 Aug 2007 03:03

Luxtor wrote:
Reading the text of the Nuke Agreement, it sounds ominus to me. Especially the part where it says something to the effect that U.S will determine if the civilian nuke co-operation in any way enhances India's nuke weapons production, i.e. the number of nukes made.


With the separation of the civilian side from the non-civilian side, how is the US going to get access to India's non-civilian side unless the US conducts espionage on the non-civilian sites? Isn't espionage already a problem...why would it be worse down the line.

Access is the first step to compromising security of the non-civilian sites, and India is not going to allow access...so how are the US spooks and others going to get access?

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

Postby bala » 07 Aug 2007 03:11

pacifying the Lantos-types


India and Israel are becoming twin brothers and beyond and we dont need lectures from a Lantos type on Iran:

Israeli Navy Chief on maiden visit

The Navy is expected to exchange views with Vice-Admiral Bashat on the Israeli equipment being inducted, including the air-to-air Derby missiles on its Sea Harrier fighters.

In the past five years, India has imported defence equipment worth $5 billion from Israel. It has made innovative use of unmanned aerial vehicles provided by Tel Aviv. Their range has been extended up to 300 nautical miles (over 550 km) by deploying control stations aboard ships.

India is also deploying Barak anti-ship missiles on its warships and jointly developing the next generation of the missile with Israel.

India, Israel for strengthening economic ties

The common message of all these meetings is that Israel seeks a comprehensive partnership with India based on recognition and appreciation for India’s role in shaping the new global order. India has grown consistently with its commitment to democracy and cultural values. The rest of the world could take pride in the history of pluralism and tolerance in India.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 03:12

IPI: That would be a distant dream via a dangerous land that can blow up pipes in no less than few seconds after laying them up. Unless India plans to take Obama to newer heights, and ensure India's long cherished idea of splitting paks into 4 countries, that we could deal with better.

Geopolitical aspirations where it satisfies our interests are must., and that is the exact reason I am saying, we should help Iran with its civilian nuclear power, but destroy their weapons ambitions.

Of course, it would go in vain, if America can't get other of its p5 friends to support this issue, chiefly russia and china.

by playing the right cop, we get better handles.

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

Postby Rye » 07 Aug 2007 03:26

SaiK wrote:
IPI: That would be a distant dream via a dangerous land that can blow up pipes in no less than few seconds after laying them up.
.


And why does the IPI actually have to be built? Maybe it is much more useful as a concept that is always "in the process of being implemented"....

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 03:31

so be it.. if that serves some purpose of sustaining a stand for paki's health.

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

Postby Rye » 07 Aug 2007 03:36

SaiK wrote:
so be it.. if that serves some purpose of sustaining a stand for paki's health.


No, it is more obvious than that....and has been spelled out here before.

Questions:

1) Who gets their underwear in a knot at the mention of the IPI
2) Who gets their underwear in a knot because of the Indo-US deal

Q.E.D: Both the IPI and the 123 agreement need to exist in order to maintain the "natural balance of things".

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 07 Aug 2007 04:30

N-deal: Left has 9 queries
By Seema Mustafa

New Delhi, Aug. 6: The nine objections raised by the CPI(M) against the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement have not been addressed in the 123 agreement.

The Left leaders have been consulting scientists and strategic experts to reach a final position on the 123 agreement at a meeting scheduled to be held here on Tuesday. Not a single objection raised by the Left has been met, according to strategic experts consulted by this newspaper. The CPI(M) had issued a statement listing the "explicit departures in the Senate and Congress drafts from the original agreement" signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush.

1. The CPI(M) was concerned that the deal required India to pursue a foreign policy congruent to that of the US; and to secure India's full and active participation in US efforts to sanction and contain Iran.

Nothing has changed with the 123 agreement. This codifies technical rules of nuclear commerce. It does not supersede the Hyde Act but is a subsidiary arrangement under the Hyde Act read with the US Atomic Energy Act. The Hyde Act is clear that Indian foreign policy has to remain congruent with the US, on Iran and all other vital issues. US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns said as much when asked about Iran by the American media. He said the 123 agreement was a technical document, and that the US expected India to follow its policy on Iran. He even said that he was hopeful that India would not enter into any long-term gas and energy cooperation with Iran, a reference to the gas pipeline.

Despite the 123 agreement, the US President has to annually certify to Congress that India is in full compliance with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.

The controversial provision for instituting a "cooperative threat reduction programme" remains. It has just been re-named by the Hyde Act as "United States-India scientific cooperative nuclear non-proliferation programme".

2. The deal would not allow full cooperation on civilian nuclear technology, denying India a complete fuel cycle.

India will continued to face an embargo on importing equipment and components related to enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production, even when such activities are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and for peaceful purposes. Article 5(2) in the 123 agreement makes this very clear.

3. Steps to be taken by India would be conditional upon and contingent on action taken by the US.

It is clear from the 123 agreement itself that all restrictions are not being lifted. Embargoes are still in place, and the US President is still required to annually certify to the Congress that India is in "full compliance" with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.

4. The US will not take the necessary steps to change its laws or align the NSG rules to fulfil the terms of the India-US nuclear deal.

The 123 agreement does not change the requirement of the Hyde Act that the NSG exemption for India be "made by consensus" and be consistent with the rules being framed by the US. The legislation requires the administration to ensure that the NSG exemption for India is no less stringent than the US exemption.

5. The additional protocol referred to in the original agreement would be intrusive and not India-specific.

New Delhi's agreement with the IAEA will be "India-specific" only in name and would contain only a cosmetic reference to India's right to take undefined and unenforceable "corrective measures" in all other respects. The 123 agreement, in its "definitions", defines well understood terms but not corrective measures. The Hyde Act prescribes for India the highly invasive Model Additional Protocol applicable to non-nuclear weapons states.

One prerequisite to bring the deal into force is that India and the IAEA should have "concluded all legal steps required prior to signature" to enforce inspections "in perpetuity". A second prerequisite mentioned in the 123 agreement is for India to make "substantial progress" on concluding an additional protocol with the IAEA. The Hyde Act defines additional protocol as the one set for non-nuclear states in the 1997 IAEA information circular. At the press conference announcing the 123 agreement, national security adviser M.K. Narayanan and the Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Dr Anil Kakodkar, did not answer a question on the additional protocol, saying that this would be taken up later.

6. India is placing its facilities in perpetuity while the US President can prevent the transfer to India of equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the NSG, or from any other source.

The 123 agreement offers assured fuel supply only so long as India adheres to the US-prescribed non-proliferation conditions. The assurances of uninterrupted fuel supply cover only disruption due to market failure, or technical, or logistical, difficulties, but not sanctions arising from India's non-compliance with non-proliferation conditions. Both the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act have explicitly stopped New Delhi from lifting safeguards even if the US were to deliberately terminate all supplies.

7. India's fissile material stockpile will be restricted.

The 123 agreement has not changed this. The Hyde Act lays emphasis on getting India to cease all fissile material production even before negotiations on an FMCT have begun in Geneva. The act requires the US President to periodically inform Congress about "steps that the US has taken and will take to encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty".

8. The deal includes physical verification and suitable access to be provided by India to US inspectors, and not just IAEA safeguards.

US end-use monitoring is reflected in the 123 agreement's Article 12 (3). Also, the provision for US fallback safeguards in Article 10 (4) states, "If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures."

9. The military programme will also be subject to monitoring by the IAEA and the US.

The 123 agreement does not change that requirement in the Hyde Act. The Hyde Act stipulates, "The President shall keep the appropriate congressional committees fully and currently informed of the fact and implications of any significant nuclear activities of India", which includes the fissile material produced and the production of nuclear weapons by India. It also demands annual estimates from the administration about the amount of uranium mined and milled in India, the amount of uranium used or allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices, and the rate of production in India of both fissile material and nuclear explosive devices.

The legislation seeks to cap, roll back and eliminate India's nuclear deterrent with the phrase "halt the increase of nuclear weapons arsenals in South Asia, and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination".

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 04:47

Rye.. agreed, from a strategic point of view.

From practical point of view, we also need oil, along with nukes. Hence, its better to side with P5 counties (if all collaborate) on supporting Iran for civilian nukes and ensure they don't follow NK path. Its a good strategy while at the same time working on the IPI per strategic needs.

Whilst on those strategic lines, it is imperative that we increase our container flotilla numbers dramatically to source the ever increasing demand for oil.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 183
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Postby Luxtor » 07 Aug 2007 04:47

Rye wrote:Luxtor wrote:
Reading the text of the Nuke Agreement, it sounds ominus to me. Especially the part where it says something to the effect that U.S will determine if the civilian nuke co-operation in any way enhances India's nuke weapons production, i.e. the number of nukes made.


With the separation of the civilian side from the non-civilian side, how is the US going to get access to India's non-civilian side unless the US conducts espionage on the non-civilian sites? Isn't espionage already a problem...why would it be worse down the line.

Access is the first step to compromising security of the non-civilian sites, and India is not going to allow access...so how are the US spooks and others going to get access?


Your point is well taken. I meant that once we've become dependant on their nuke co-operation they might blackmail us in to giving them data about our weapons program otherwise they'll claim that we're in breach of the agreement if we don't allow them to verify if their civilian nuke co-operation is enhancing our weapons program as the text is written in the agreement. :roll:

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 05:44

The "trigger-happy test" criterion is the right one.

Meanwhile, we (India) need to work out in the gym and grow economic/military muscle, have the ability to kick the can down the road fearlessly and have the other big boys applaud instead of rebuke. Get the investment rolling and stock up on the slow burning chula should be the mantra.


I don't believe the BJP or anyone else is going to conduct a supercritical nuclear test (aka inflation) unless there is a terrible threat to national security - and we are embarking on an all-out nuclear arms race. All this stuff about
Oh! we need DATA! So let's destroy our country's economy and displace the Pakis from the position of World's Most Hated Nation!
is utter nonsense. Fortunately India is not the sort of nation where yahoos can go to the government and demand permission to destroy the nation for wacko reasons like that, and the government is run by yahoos THAT stupid at the top.

Maybe if the BJP wins, the CONGRESS will set off a nuke to make sure the economy collapses.

A nation that is believed to have a steadily growing nuclear arsenal, is believed to conduct top-tier weapon system research, but does not resort to outlaw stunts, is a responsible superpower.

A nation that "tests" nuclear weapons just to get "data" in this day and age, is a wacko outlaw nation, completely irresponsible.

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

Postby svinayak » 07 Aug 2007 05:55

enqyoob wrote:
A nation that "tests" nuclear weapons just to get "data" in this day and age, is a wacko outlaw nation, completely irresponsible.


Only nuke experts can say this but the political class does Not give confidence to the people about the future status of India's position.

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

Postby Rye » 07 Aug 2007 06:04

SaiK wrote:

From practical point of view, we also need oil, along with nukes. Hence, its better to side with P5 counties (if all collaborate) on supporting Iran for civilian nukes and ensure they don't follow NK path.


A more prudent option would be to ask Iran to "behave responsibly" and make noises about "fully supporting Iran's right for a civilian program and it rights under the NPT" (they have no rights under the NPT, but we don't have to be the ones to tell them that -- let them figure it out on their own).

India has no control whether Iran chooses the NoKo path or not --- India's overarching interest w.r.t. Iran is to ensure that India appears to be on Iran's side contingent upon Iran's behaviour as a responsible state adhering to their responsibilities as a NPT member nation. Hey, since India is not part of the NPT, we can extend the "full support from the outside" just like the CPI(M) comrades in India....Since the IPI plans will only remain on the table as long as Iran continues to believe that it has something to gain, it may be better to let Iran believe that in fact it has the upper hand in the IPI negotiations -- their own intransigence can be used to delay what should never see the light of day. The only real long-term imperative is to periodically take one step forward with Iran w.r.t. IPI and then force a couple of steps back in a plausibly deniable manner in order to keep various options open until the path to the future is certain.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 06:10

Why not just offer India's "good offices" to defuse tensions in the Nuclear Powder Keg of the Middle East?

That should keep the "negotiations" going for the next 20 years.. Appoint the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court as the Chief Negotiation Expeditor - the guy who's been "expediting" the Ayodhya case, I mean.

The other course is to add "And Pakistan" to everything the US says about Eyeran.

As in "Iran AND PAKISTAN need to stop trying to make nuclear weapons".

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

Postby bala » 07 Aug 2007 06:40

I fully endorse "Iran AND PAKISTAN to stop nuke weapons" idea. That should keep the Lantos/Burns/Mulchford/US Congress India baiters babbling crowd scratching their collective heads and perhaps tone down their rhetoric to the presses. Yeah, why not, throw that in as part of 123 deal.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 07 Aug 2007 06:41

Folks,

In case anybody has not yet caught onto the 90%-95% con game being played by all the naysayers to the deal including the esteemed Dr. Prasad, Rajiv Sikri et. al, let me illustrate it:

As of now:

Gross Reactor capacity in operation and under construction (excluding research and Fast Breeders) 6700MW.

Of which a Gross Reactor capacity of 2350MW will be in the military sector, leaving 4350MW safeguarded. 2350MW = 35% unsafeguarded, leaving 65% under IAEA inspection.

Consider that a lot of India's capacity consists of smaller 220MW reactors with 540MW capacity reactors now being built and commissioned with Kundakalam having the large 1000MW Russian reactors under safeguard.

If this agreement should go forward, companies like GE and Framatom will bid to instal their latest design large capacity reactors with capacities in the 1500-1600MW range. Should even 10 such reactors be installed in the next 10 years, the installed capacity will increase from 6700MW to 6700MW + new capacity of say 15000MW = total capacity of 21,700MW.

Knowledgeable people on this thread have stated that the unsafeguarded PHWR reactors with a capacity of 2350MW can generate 1750kg/year of WgPu in low burn mode, enough at 3kg/weapon to make 500 + warheads per year if India chooses to.

Therefore if all those 10 safeguarded reactors with foreign collaboration are installed in the next 10 years the safeguarded capacity will be 89%, say 90%. If 15 reactors of 1500MW are added for a gross new capacity of 22,500MW of new capacity is added all of it safeguarded, then the safeguarded percentage will be 92%.

The question is:

Why is this bogey of 90%-95% being raised?


Does it harm India's capacity to produce weapons grade material? No. Does India want to produce more than 1750kg/year of WgPu? And if it does, is there any bar to building say 1 or 2 more PHWR units of 540MW each? Again the answer is no.

So both the US as well as the naysayers in India play around with these numbers. The US to convince its own recalcitrint Congress that "almost all of India's capacity will be covered by safeguards within the next 25 years".

And the naysayers in India to raise the bogey of India being neutered.

But if that is the biggest argument the naysayers can come up with, then they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 06:58

But that is the biggest argument going, then they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.


Precisely. They are using the argument of

DID U KNOW HIS SISTER IS A THESPIAN?


Playing on the ignorance and laziness of the janata. Which tells me that they are not 400% honest, and are playing politics with India's future, and are cynical and stupid and incompetent.

The real dangers are in the "whoosh" sucking sound of $375B going to foreign companies, and all the $$ going to buy useless FA-18 fighter planes designed in 1970.

Calvin got my question on ROI right - the issue is: what sort of ROI are the investors expecting? This will tell us the level of risk that they perceive, and the payback period that they expect. From that you can gauge the intentions of the US pretty well. But the BJP etc are not doing any thinking on those lines.

Funny thing is that the brilliant idea of setting up imported-coal thermal plants along the coast, will be hindered because it takes 5 days to go around Sri Lanka to get from east coast to west coast or vice versa. That's because the BJP/ "NDA" holies are busily obstructing the SethuSamudram Canal project, on similarly bogus "expert" arguments.

Overall, the NDA got my support during the years 1998-2002 or so, because for a while there, they lit up the imagination of desis, and gave us hope. But then they went back to their bozo antics and laziness, which had kept them in the Opposition with no hope of winning power, all through the 1960s until IG declared Emergency. Now they are back there, doing what they know best.

And the BJP keeps expecting us to support it, although it now stands against everything that we believe in.

Sad, to think we can't do better than the bunch now in power, but that's the truth.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 07 Aug 2007 07:14

enqyoob wrote:Overall, the NDA got my support during the years 1998-2002 or so, because for a while there, they lit up the imagination of desis, and gave us hope. But then they went back to their bozo antics and laziness, which had kept them in the Opposition with no hope of winning power, all through the 1960s until IG declared Emergency. Now they are back there, doing what they know best


I think the NDA realize that they have been comprehensively out-baniaed (your copyright :) ) by the UPA on this agreement and hence the foaming and frothing at the mouth with a lot of incoherent pieces in the media by the Energizer Bunnies (again your copyright!!) playing fast and loose with the facts.

I think one masterful stroke by the UPA in this agreement has been that the entire negotiations were handled by the bureaucrats through thick and thin, good and bad. The elected UPA politicians stayed far away. Naturally in the process an "ownership" of the deal has been established by the bureaucrats who have laboured long and hard for 2 years over it whether it be DAE or MEA. The NDA in its criticism has to be careful, because its criticism has the unwitting effect of criticizing the bureaucrats who now "own" this deal, something that the NDA absolutely must not want to do. I am sure that the last thing they want to do is to p*ss of entire ministrys. :lol:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 07:50

jee... what right from this deal, does unkil men gets to build nuclear reactors in India? Unkil men have no experience building nuclear reactors for the past 25 years or so. Get them the hell out of here..sheesh~!.

yes, pakistan is perfect match for iran word for the 123.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 07 Aug 2007 07:59

SaiK wrote:jee... what right from this deal, does unkil men gets to build nuclear reactors in India? Unkil men have no experience building nuclear reactors for the past 25 years or so. Get them the hell out of here..sheesh~!.

yes, pakistan is perfect match for iran word for the 123.


Well they are building 4 in China.. :shock:

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

Postby Arun_S » 07 Aug 2007 08:00

ldev: I think you are on the dot on the 90-95% american salesmenship.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

The Pursuit Clause in Safeguards Agreement

Postby Sanatanan » 07 Aug 2007 09:11

On 6th Aug 2007 (in Page 6 of this thread) enqyoob wrote:

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.


I believe the above is not an accurate position.

If "Maraging Steel" has been classified as a dual use item, then before GE is allowed to export it to India for a civilian nuclear plant, the authorities in India would need to provide an end-use certificate to US /NSG. The end-use certificate, among other things would clearly indicate why the material is required and in which part of the plant it will be used. (that is, in this case, GE, as plant designer / supplier, would need to justify why that particular item is required in its reactor and show where it will be used). US's / NGS's export licence for the item is specific only to that particular end-use certificate. India cannot use it elsewhere including its non-civil plants. IAEA agreements have clauses based on the doctrine of "pursuit", whereby they can, and most certainly will, carryout inspection and audit the use of all such items; anomalies will be treaded as non-compliance with the safeguards agreement.

Clearly India cannot afford to get caught cheating on an end-use certificate.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

The Pursuit Clause in Safeguards Agreement

Postby Sanatanan » 07 Aug 2007 09:12

Deleted. Sorry, the previous post got duplicated.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 07 Aug 2007 09:19

The problem with NDA is killing the golden goose that is to say going against the interest of the Middle Class Indians who form the back bone of their electoral base!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 09:28

I just can't believe if you leave out the economic factor out of this, and say we get to buy this technology and that reactor. Recently bush did a budget approval for building 25 nuclear plants in America, @ $5 billion per reactor. What do we think would the cost of a similar reactor if BARC builds it?, plus other operational costs and ultimately the cost per watt to the end user?

Americans can give loans to china to build westinghouse reactors.. thats all their capitalistic moves. I am surprised that china went with (or did they actually?), american reactors that would be pretty expensive for the end user.

If we are letting others' technology or product, then it has to be BARC folks doing the implementation. Again, are we at real seeking mode in terms of nuclear technology?

Our major concern is fuel is very understandable for eons of discussions. Why are we giving away into this psy-op values that only benefit american thoughts?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 16:00

Sanatanan:

Please consider connecting the thinking circuits to the reading circuits before switching on the writing circuits.

I believe the above is not an accurate position.


Thanks for your kind explanation of the dual-use export process. So what was inaccurate in the statement you quoted, please?

You may have every intention of cheating on end-user certificates, and the foreigners may assume that there are too many like you in the Indian establishment, but I don't. Your assumptions read exactly like those of a NonProllotullah - that any Indian purchase related to nuclear anything HAS to be for weapon production.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 16:50

Recently bush did a budget approval for building 25 nuclear plants in America, @ $5 billion per reactor.


Saibhai, let me use that quote to get on the soapbox, no offence to you, please.

Why would the US Federal budget have to pay for these reactors, unless they are military? In the US, civilian reactors (for power) are owned by utilities, and it is these companies that decide whether to shell out $$, based on the expected ROI. US taxpayers pay for them, but in their power bill to the local power monopoly, not in their taxes.

Also, why would BARC be in the business of building civilian power reactors, unless they are BARC designs? The "RC" stands for Research Center, not Reactor Construction, hey? This is the same as "Why has DRDO not manufactured 10,000 LCAs yet?"

I would think Reliance or Tata are much better set up to handle large infrastructure projects like these, with the phoren collaborashun. The GE/Westinghouse types will look with deep concern at any BARC participation in power reactor construction, because they would be afraid of the ITAR Damocles' Sword back home. People really need to read the ITAR, instead of wasting time on the "123", to understand what the American aam janata are up against.

Again, the whole issue in this Deal is Separation Between Civilian and Strategic sectors. People here can't seem to spend the 5 seconds of thought it requires to firmly establish this in their minds. The deal is that India SEPARATES the civilian sector from the military, so that foreign countries can with assurance, collaborate in developing nuclear power and maybe nuclear medicine and all such peaceful applications with India, and end 34 years of their Fatwa on us, assured that they are not being conned into helping a nuclear weapons program.

A huge part of the reason for this, is that THEY are reasonably assured that India does NOT need to steal from the civilian reactors to build whatever weapons India really needs, and that India has no intention of doing any more tests.

Obviously they don't believe that the postors on BRF represent the thought processes of India. Thank Allah for that.

As hard as India tries to insist that this has NOTHING to do with the strategic sector, we have BRF postors coming out of the woodwork and declaring how we want to steal this technology and that and use it to build and TEST nuclear weapons - RIGHT AWAY, too! AND they want other countries to naively supply the technology and the fuel for the weapons program!

There IS one way for India to get a flow of American nuclear weapons aid. That is to declare India the 52nd State of the US and become a total poodle (make that mongrel) Al-Lie. Even Al-Lies don't get nuke weapons, sorry, so India would have to just sign a Total Dependence on America for Protection Act. LOTS of shiny new planes, ships, missiles and toxic waste dumps will be situated on Indian territory. So many US sailors and soldiers can be seen all over the cities, driving around with no regard for pedestrians, beating up people, and carousing all round with bottle in one hand and M-16 in the other, like in Baghdad or Okinawa or Seoul or Manila or Panama. With all the attendant joys of having a foreign army dominating the population.

I assume you guys are all for that, being such "nationalist" and "patriots" and all?

Are you sure the PakDeaf&Dumb hasn't taken over BRF?

Moral: ppl, pls establish firmly that the strategic nuclear program is NOT to be mentioned in the context of the Civilian deal. The Americans have clearly tried to walk a fine line and avoid linking the two. So why are WE now insisting on linking these? Like I said, short of surrendering sovereignty to the Americans, there is no way that they or anyone else is going to endorse or support or encourage our strategic weapons program.

They have agreed to basically close their eyes to it, and in the case of the Americans, they have even implicitly recognized that it is there, and they are NOT out to try to destroy it. That's as far as anyone can expect them to go, and if you know what things were like in the US against India in the 1970s and 80s and 90s, you would understand what a HUUUUGE change this is.

Clearly they and everyone else except Pakis and Chinese, hope that Strategic Nuclear Programs will be a thing of the past, 20 years from now. India has never WANTED to become a nuclear weapon holder, it was basically forced on us. So Global nuclear disarmament is completely in line with Indian long-term interests.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 07 Aug 2007 17:15, edited 1 time in total.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

b]It is about National Sovereignty&Strategic suicide dam

Postby Prabu » 07 Aug 2007 17:06

Ram, Ram !


http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/07/stories/2007080771701100.htm

123: Rethink before we go forward

The above article in today's THE HINDU has been written by an unidentified person who had his long association with the Indian Technology establishment. perhaps he is in the Govt now. Very interesting points to note.

If , I summarise, These are the key people who are aginst the deal in current form. It is NOT that they are aginst the deal for ever. They are aginst the deal in its current form. Think of strategic price !! which will create a un imaginable DENT in Indian strategic interests !!

1) Dr Prasd
2) Mr.Rajiv Sikri
3) MB.Raman on out look
4) Now left, N-deal: Left has 9 queries ( Looks incredible !)
5) 123: Rethink before we go forward Unknown person in Govt via THE HINDU today
6) Of course BJP, yeswanth sinha and team
7) Go for parlimentory resoulution - VP singh ( a former PM of India)

The REAL aprehension is NOT on TEST or NO TEST !! It is about Getting in to bigger US trap !

1) You dont get any new technolgy ( especially dual use !) Its HYDE act whetehr you are willing to accept or NOT !!
2) No Real FULL reprocessing !
3) Become a SLAVE state of US.(even fuel supplies are NOT Iron clad !)
4) To limit and eventual reduction of our weapon capabilities
5) To keep a upperhand on all the international issue by using this deal as a BLACK MAIL in future to any future US presidents.


Even after doing all this two year long negotiation Drama, US law's are NOT going to change first !!

6)What is the guarantee that CHINA will not block NSG amendment ???
7) what is the guarantee US congress will approve ??
8)and reprocessing another marathan negotiaon will start, yet again !!
9) We Must toe US line on Iran
10) Eventually US will expedite FMCT and limit us very soon than what GOI thinks !
11) If we dont behave properly they can find humpteen reasons to stop fuel supply, from non-implementation of IAEA safe guards, by using presidents annual certification or any silly reason to make US congress & NPS's happy.
12) They want to steal FBR technology by placing in safe guards.
(Russia & France is a party to it, to prevent India emerging as Biggest reprocessing center, as N_Rao rightly quoted !!)
13) With Huge costs involved in separation and separate re processing centers etc, ( NOT to talk of strategicv price !) does this whole deal worth ??

OK all said and done Is this deal will eliminate the power crisis ??? certainly NOT !! :roll:

Enqub ?? , Idev ??? What is yur take ??

Even if you discont BJPs's claim & VP singh's as political, look at the facts on all others !! Can any one DEAL pushers here in BR can give counter, point by point analysis for atleast thre of the above articles ???

This was demanded by few new comers ( so called trainee's, like me) and it was ignored !!


Last , but Not the least , read M K Bhadrakumar's
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/07guest.htm
Why India is sleeping on foreign policy


It is about National Sovereignty of foreign policy & Strategic suicide, Damit !

!! KILL THE DEAL !!

Please think of ALL energy alternatives !! and Bring national Law's and politely regret and blame Oppositions & scintific community ! then Re-negotiate in our terms !! Keeping strategic interests in mind

Jai Hind !
- PRABU

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

Postby Sanjay M » 07 Aug 2007 17:17

I would like to see deal opponents (and I may be one) at least coming up with an attractive alternative to the 123 deal if they oppose it, rather than just the business-as-usual situation. Because as it stands, if we're only going to be achieving commercial power needs by 2040, that's way too long to wait.

Any ideas how India can come up with better alternatives to 123?

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1014
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 07 Aug 2007 17:17

!! KILL THE DEAL !!


Just what do we achieve by killing the deal??? We are simply denying ourselves the possibility to get our hands on various type of technologies that we may require.

As for becomming dependant, that is up to us.

I can't understand how stupid and biased one can get.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 17:29

Energizer Bunny hype. Let's take the key points:

1. The article appeared in THE HUNDI,

which is a Chinese Communist-owned anti-Indian rag. Isn't it amusing that the BJP/NDA/RSS now finds their support in The Hundi of all places?

2. Danger cited: The NSG MAY NOT APPROVE THE DEAL!

So what? Isn't that what the EB's want? So how is this a DIS-advantage?

The Energizer Bunnies couldn't figure THAT out without my help? :roll: :roll:

I think that's enough time wasted. These guys are so clueless in their incoherent babbling that they can't see how their own "logical arguments" provoke only more laughter against them.

Every time the EBs reveal what's between their ears, they confirm the wisdom of the Indian electorate in laughing them out of power. Pathetic.

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

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2007 17:31

WRT Iran, I feel that Uncle has tossed TSP as a bone. With MMS making a lot of noise on the 'peace' this and that - MMS seems to have either bought into or his arm was twisted.

I think the cost to Uncle should be much higher. At a minimum IOR.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 17:33

Sanjay:
Unfortunately, the only quick way to get nuclear power going, is to buy a few Soviet nuclear subs, bring the reactors ashore and connect them up. Even this may take 40 years, given the speed of the Gorshkov negotiation. I mean, the coral reef may enclose the Gorshkov and save it from sinking from the holes due to the rust, before the deal is done.

Meanwhile, of course, u r welcome to join Enqyoob MicroRenewables Inc and become a billionaire.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1014
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 07 Aug 2007 17:40

Any ideas how India can come up with better alternatives to 123?


They don't have any. Typically they are just whiners.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 07 Aug 2007 17:50

Rishirishi wrote:
Any ideas how India can come up with better alternatives to 123?


They don't have any. Typically they are just whiners.


Nrao posted some alternatives, I mean to dump this deal and a strategy to develop India's energy reserves. Anyway, these are moot points, 123 (Hyde) is here to stay, its up to Indian govt to take what it can from this deal, and play hard ball if Unkil plays dirty as he surely would.

Raju

Postby Raju » 07 Aug 2007 18:03

here's a new googly,

breaking News:

Left refuses to accept 123 agreement after assessing it again.

Left says that 123 should not be operationalised. Left calls on govt not to proceed any further with the nuclear deal.

Left to insist on constitutional amendment

the amendment being to bring international treaties for prior approval of parliament.

Amendment also to bring bilateral treaties for prior consent of parliament.

Prakash Karat: 123 should not be operationalised

Nilotpal Basu: 123 cannot be seen in isolation. Many aspects mentioned in Hyde act are not covered in 123. :-o

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

Postby John Snow » 07 Aug 2007 18:14

Bhai Log there is lot of money to be made.

The left feels left out and besides their Masters in Bejing are not amused so left will do what it is best pull down the GOI.

MMS is neither a leader nor a visionary, he could have easily divided and conquerred the opposition had he taken BJP , Amma Jaya front etc into confidence... but then if he was capable of that kind he would be holding the sari of SG....

Its now up to PMs dream team to placate the opposition... as N Rao said if we can get rid of Hyde we can ride with uncle....
Last edited by John Snow on 07 Aug 2007 18:29, edited 1 time in total.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1014
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 07 Aug 2007 18:21

Nrao posted some alternatives, I mean to dump this deal and a strategy to develop India's energy reserves. Anyway, these are moot points, 123 (Hyde) is here to stay, its up to Indian govt to take what it can from this deal, and play hard ball if Unkil plays dirty as he surely would


The deal does not stop India from persuing other sources of energy, does it? Should India just dump it for the sake thrill of it?


Nuclear energy is just one of the strategies being considred. Also india does not need to become dependant on US. If India plays safe, it can purchase selective techs and learn. It can stockpile uranium etc.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest