India Nuclear News & Discussion - 07 Aug 2007

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 847
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

India Nuclear News & Discussion - 07 Aug 2007

Postby sivab » 07 Aug 2007 18:54

Left parties reject 123 accord

New Delhi, Aug. 7 (PTI): Left parties, supporting allies of the Government, today rejected the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement and asked the Government not to proceed with operationalising it.

The four-party alliance also decided to press for a constitutional amendment for bringing international treaties and certain bilateral agreements for approval in Parliament.

After "careful assessment" of the text of 123 pact released on Friday and studying it in the "context of burgeoning strategic alliance" with the US, the Left parties said they were "unable to accept the agreement."

"The Left calls upon the Government not to proceed further with operationalising of the agreement," a statement issued by the four parties here today said.

"There has to be review of the strategic aspect of Indo-US relations in Parliament," it said.

Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Amitabh » 07 Aug 2007 19:03


Yeah, and I reject Sudan's Darfur campagin. Not that I can do much about it but it sure helps with the women.
Last edited by Amitabh on 07 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

Postby ksmahesh » 07 Aug 2007 19:05

Left parties reject 123 accord


As expected. Anything good for India is poison for commies. Heights of nautanki. These commies are the same that were shouting against budha's smile and now pretend to be most concerned for Indian strategic nuclear bums. Bloody pain in musharraf.

Can we not just ship these commies free of charge to unkil or china where liberal right and commie left will have a taste of real commie/HRActivists/Sikularists? In fact they are more potent than nekulear bum unkil is so scared of.

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

Postby Prabu » 07 Aug 2007 19:13

abhischekcc,

Well said !

John Snow wrote :

as N Rao said if we can get rid of Hyde we can ride with uncle....


This is pricisely the poit I am making !! Counter the hyde, then you have much better deal !!

Admins,

Why dont you consider return of GeorgeJ, AlokN, etc ?


sivab Wrote,

"Left parties reject 123 accord "


Nice twist to the deal for MMS and coy ! :lol:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 19:17

prabhu.. that is not the point.. the point is BARC + L&T or BHEL or Tatas are same or more than GE or any american company, w.r.t to getting the maximum out of this deal [compare experience not from an angle like research center v/s business house].

another point is if the deal is leaning more towards giving into like how china is having westinghouse and thus given a cheap loan by american govt, is another capitalistic scam by our unkil men.

I understand we have to look at this deal away from a leftist view of things, but at national interest perspective, I would prefer our private firm against theirs, if there is slightest chance of getting it done by us.

Initially our private firms would do a screw driver job with BARC, and then slowly the would move in once they build one, increasing the stakes, venture and technology aspects.

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

Postby Rye » 07 Aug 2007 19:24

SaiK wrote:
I understand we have to look at this deal away from a leftist view of things, but at national interest perspective, I would prefer our private firm against theirs, if there is slightest chance of getting it done by us.


One question that may need to be answered before doing that is "how are spare parts supplies going to be supplied to private companies?" and if the answer is "imports", then we are talking material that can be yannked back during sanctions...which is why the Indian govt. is seeking the capability to produce its own spares in case of such an eventuality in its JVs (that's my reading of it anyway).

Initially our private firms would do a screw driver job with BARC, and then slowly the would move in once they build one, increasing the stakes, venture and technology aspects.


I think the private firms need funds to survive in the open market, so making them suppliers of spare parts for different imported reactors is a good way to start the screwdriver job?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 07 Aug 2007 19:36


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

Postby John Snow » 07 Aug 2007 19:51

First Time I see equoob not being rational and impartial

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

Postby svinayak » 07 Aug 2007 19:57

Me Too

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

Postby ksmahesh » 07 Aug 2007 20:05

I guess he is tired of being rational and constantly underline his pov. It is great that he is taking a break else he might go Alok_N way (Those who claim he was not respectful cannot be farther from truth. He was angry on ostrich phenomenon which surprisingly is official here as far as religion discussion is concerned)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N^3 must be beating the hell out of a sand bag to give vent to frustration.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 20:46

yes.. BRights should have prescribed BR hours guided by self discipline or SHQ basis. they should perhaps have more sex, jog, walk, explore some realities in nature, etc during the breaks. its the psy-op syndrome that is catching good posters... or getting lost into details, and forgetting the holistic view to connect the dots.

plus, the other junior executive brights should follow their steps as well, since once we lose more these br-elite club, the more heavy weight features will fall on these second line posters.

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

Postby CRamS » 07 Aug 2007 20:49

John Snow wrote:First Time I see equoob not being rational and impartial


Which post are you refering to?

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

Postby John Snow » 07 Aug 2007 21:12

CRamS wrote:
John Snow wrote:First Time I see equoob not being rational and impartial


Which post are you refering to?


With utmost respect to Nguru, in general some how his train of thoughts were not so lucid and equivocal.

By the way what were the gumptions of MMS to go ahed with a bunch of babus leading the charge with out taking into his hotch potch coalition and of all his own Rajaya Sabha memebership?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 21:19

This one obviously:

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


Snowji, ye of little faith! :( V r ALMOST there.. Inshallah with a few more $B of ISI currency.. ... :oops:

Sorry, Prabuji, I don't read stuff in The Hundi if I can help it. Obviously the Hundi was writing as prelude to their Comrade Masters' announcement.

OK, abcc, point noted :P

V can jump up and down with the most energetic of the EBs, thank u.

**********************
Interesting situation. Now if Left will vote against, and EBs join, then does this mean elections? It will be extremely interesting if either the "Communist Left" or the "Hindoo Right" are blamed for shooting down the deal as being too pro-American.

AID, FOSA, FOIL, PAA and HSC can jointly hold the "Allah will Destory Terrist India and Acerima..." posters this year in Prophet Franciso-abad. :roll:

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

Postby Rye » 07 Aug 2007 21:35

Govt ready to discuss N-deal under rule entailing voting: Dasmunsi


Ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament beginning on Friday, the government on Tuesday indicated its readiness for a discussion on Indo-US civil nuclear deal in Lok Sabha under a rule which entails voting, a demand made by opposition BJP.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister PR Dasmunsi told a press conference that the government would abide by whatever decision the Presiding Officers of both Houses of Parliament take on the nature and form of any discussion.

He said no decision has been taken whether Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would make a suo motu statement in Parliament on the issue.

The BJP has given notice in the Lok Sabha for a discussion on the deal under Rule 184 which entails voting.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... 5cb568e07f

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 21:36

Indian left is like the cat on the wall... try predict which way it will jump!. They always start with a "right no", and the finally end up with a "left yes".

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

Postby ldev » 07 Aug 2007 21:44

I think the commies are bargaining very hard for their pound of flesh. Ofcourse their comrade masters in Beijing will have told them to vote against this deal. But the commies also know that if this should result in another election, they may never have the kind of leverage they have today in GOI where with 43 seats and about 5% of the vote, they hold a virtual veto over the ruling party.

But one way or another I believe the UPA will get the votes necessary. See how they pulled off Pratiba Patil's election as President. Whom did they coopt? :wink: Now who would have thunk that would happen?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 21:55

Evidently, the first GE and Westinghouse plants will have to be in W.Bengal. V r told by re-lie-able sources that US Embassy "officers" :roll: have been in close touch with the Comrades since b4 the Nandigram pleasantries.

This is shakedown, pure and simple. OTOH, it is beautiful. IAEA will go broke getting Clouseux to try and wake up the Comrade AITUC and DYFI Aphsars at these plants to conduct their Examinations. They will first have to go to the Panchayat Party Office and get permission after making the usual donations to the People's Cause, and then ride in the CPI(Maoist) Jeeps with the Red Banners to be allowed in the Plant gates.

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

Postby bala » 07 Aug 2007 22:24

I know that Lawyers are hated by everyone but the GOI made a monumental mistake not having a lawyer vet the language of the agreement. Things like national laws clause would not have been slipped in very easily without opposition by Indian negotiation team. Nuclear Tests by India are not mentioned in the 123, but India should have insisted something like "This US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement will not take into affect any decision that Govt of India or US may take with their Strategic Nuclear Options". This is fair.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 22:32

:rotfl:

enqyoob.. thats a terrific deal breaker #1.

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

Postby Arun_S » 07 Aug 2007 22:41

After all the din The Lion "uvacha"

[quote]India in a nuclear trap

Manmohan Singh has struck a beggar’s bargain, by taking whatever was offered to him

Bharat Karnad
In the jungle, if a carnivorous animal finds itself in the jaws of an iron trap, it will try and gnaw through the skin and bone of its immobilized leg. The animal gets away, minus a limb, but with its life and freedom intact. A wild elephant in chains on the other hand, lacking a mouthful of sharp teeth to free itself by chewing through its own shin and sinew, can only await a condign fate.

India is a meek-natured elephant all right, which until now had been an elusive non-proliferation target. America, the consummate shikari, has been scouting this animal for over 40 years now. It, finally, “baggedâ€
Last edited by Arun_S on 07 Aug 2007 22:48, edited 1 time in total.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 07 Aug 2007 22:47

My take on this whole matter is rather different, I still will bat with enquoob on the opinion with alok_N however lets look into things,

1. US today is more powerful than the Roman Empire ever was.
2. India needs to define in the world what is Indian, impossible to do that through a-la socialist/commie countries.
3. We need to engage US and need to do that for good, we need to be the France of Asia and do the game for this we need political vision.We need to follow the so called middle path of Buddha.
4. Dont think rejecting this deal is a good idea, rather create a national set of laws that totally rejects the negative aspects of the Hyde overriding the national laws.
5. Re-negotiate the language of hyde incase necessary with Indian lawmakers in the table, Indian lawmakers seeing the language is very important I hope it has been done already!
6. The compromise that US wants India to be done , is entirely I think can be taken care of with bold political vision the main thing we lack, both are democracies why US can take India for political ride is only because of its strong lawmaking system and national vision which we lack, Brain drain? Whats stopping GOI from doing right measure to stop such thing?

As I said we can engage US for good and take our cake as well, the only way US can screw us is through lack of political vision thus to say we dont have counter is wrong, we have it we have to implement it and then eat the cake for a equal-equal stuff.

I can be wrong as well but just my 2 cents.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 22:59

BK may be right.. but may be wrong, especially MMS. He should have traced those strings behind him where it leads to. I am sure he would have changed his article to reflect a mahoutini.

I wish we elect a black belt jones as the PM next time with a 2/3rds majority, and could deal Bush or any Khan, like how Putin does but less communism.

trivia: what will MMS drink in Bush's ranch? some type of monoclonal genetically modified antibodies.
Last edited by SaiK on 07 Aug 2007 23:07, edited 3 times in total.

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

Postby ldev » 07 Aug 2007 23:04

From the Bharat Karnad article posted by Arun_S

[quote]India in a nuclear trap

But testing is the fulcrum of credible Indian deterrence and the country’s great power ambitions. More so because, unlike the US, Russian, Chinese, British and French nuclear weapons and delivery systems, the bulk of the Indian “boosted fissionâ€

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 23:09

ldev.. what are you saying. I thought you accepted after n3 et al emphatically screamed & thumped that we don't need to test any more.

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

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2007 23:10

ldev wrote:
It will be interesting to find out how many times from May 1998 onwards upto July 05 just before the GWB-MMS joint statement did Bharat Karnad (or any of the other folks who call themselves strategic thinkers) ask for continued testing of the Indian nuke arsenal with as much passion for and disdain to the party in power that he asking for in this article. It will be good to get a list of his articles written over those 7 years where he has specifically asked for testing to continue. Or has he discovered religion only after July 05?


Rediff :: June, 2000 :: BK :: 'We are great at fooling ourselves'

I have been saying this for almost two years, since the May 1998 tests. The case I am making is that unless we test, and do so repeatedly, we will not be able to have deployable or usable weapons. We will have computer-designed weapons which can be exploded in computer simulations. But that is not the same as the real thing. Without physical testing, we will never know whether our nuclear weapons work.


So, around 1998.

How many times? I would say at least once a year. Guestimate, of course.

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

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2007 23:12

ldev,

For what it is worth, IF at all, I have found holes in the armour of those that are currently advising MMS.

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

Postby sunilUpa » 07 Aug 2007 23:15

[quote="ldev"]From the Bharat Karnad article posted by Arun_S

[quote]India in a nuclear trap

But testing is the fulcrum of credible Indian deterrence and the country’s great power ambitions. More so because, unlike the US, Russian, Chinese, British and French nuclear weapons and delivery systems, the bulk of the Indian “boosted fissionâ€

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

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2007 23:20

The Hyde Act is internal to the US, no two ways about that.

But, when there is a difference of opinion based on THIS 123 (there was another prior to this too), then the US has no other option but to fall back on the Hyde Act. India can do anything she pleases - convene committees, international arbitrators, etc. It will not matter - the US Prez has to follow their Law.

What is not in the 123, is there in the Hyde Act - which is THE GOAL.

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

Postby ksmahesh » 07 Aug 2007 23:22

Part of opposition stems from lack of confidence in political establishment, which for historical reasons is not unfounded. Another aspect of opposition is "We didnot show guts during negotiations".

1. It is true that our "Dhotiwalas" are good for corruption onlee but this should not be the reason for not dealing with US. Agreed, US has always been dishonest in past deals (ala Tarapur) and nothing suggests that it will mend its behaviour in future but we have no alternative except to deal with US for following reasons (underlined many times by countless BRFites):
a) Power: for India to continue on the developmental path we need energy. Coal creates more environmental disasters than it solves (China is already facing). Solar cells are pathetically inefficient. Wind etc need time to develop. (I am all for it) but it cannot replace conventional sources - oil, gas, nuclear. The only way to get nuclear fuel for energy is by engaging NSG which is not possible without dealing with US. So weak political system or not for development we have to deal with US.

2. Now the deal:
a) we can have any number of bums using our own fuel and US can do nothing about it. Moreover the estimate of uranium ores is more than sufficient for our deterrent needs at the moment. In future FBR will come through and we shall have more than what we can use some day.
b) We definitely shall have to depend upon NSG fuel but well how is it different from our current dependence on arab oil. Infact some countries - Brazil, SA are very important potentially reliably allies. Thus assumption of our dependence on US for nuclear fuel is similar to our dependence on Pakistan for arab oil.
c) Curtailing of fuel supplies in case of test: Well everybody knows that our bums worked. Pukis and Chinis know that our delievery systems are in place. Now I fail to understand how additional tests by pukis should trigger insecurity in us to follow suit. As long as we are confident of our bums why should we care. In any case I would prefer pukis to test and become a failed nation (sanctions).
d) We do have our own reprocessing tech. So for our strategic program we give two hoots for unkil's tech, which any way we can use in special facility.
e) IPR on civilian FBR: firstly we might place first FBR after 50 years. It is afterall our choice. And even then we can protect the IPR ala brazil.

So what is the problem with the deal. I guess we simply need to show more confidence in ourselves and not be afraid of US (only cautious and careful).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I was extremely pessimistic about deal but after reading its text + summarised results here I believe it is an OK deal.
Last edited by ksmahesh on 07 Aug 2007 23:26, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 23:23

Sorry, the Karnad article has no substance, it's all thermo-gaseous fizzing and frrting.

Yeah, the 123 agreement says it is subject to National Laws. What did they expect? That the US would sign an agreement that is NOT subject to US laws?

What India has signed is subject to Indian laws, I HOPE! So what stops India from having new laws, that carefully keep the agreement viable, but stop all the things that the Chickens Little and EBs are upset about?

For that matter, why not pass a law that says:

It is hereby resolved by the Lok Sabha ... (etc. etc) that

That nothing heretofore agreed upon by guvrmand of India or any agents thereof, shall be construed in any way to have compromised, in the past, present or future, the following self-evident truths:

1. That India is the Greatest IT SuperPower in Duniya
2. That India is a Nuclear Weapon Power, attested to by 3 Gazetted Aphsar on Rs. 100 stamp paper.

3. That Indian Govt will test atom ki bum whenevar India pleases.
4. That Indian nuclear arse-e-null is completely failure-proof and working in good order onlee.
5. That India will say :P :P to Unkil, Poodles etc. every 6 months to remind everyone that India is NonAligned Non-Awake Guvrmand run by South Block Babucracy onlee.


There you have it. Enqyoob-Joey-Laloo-Jayalalitha (EJLJ) Act of 2007. Superseding Hyde Act, Jekyll Act and Frankenstein Act.

Nothing there stops implementation of the 123, and yet it removes all objections. Now it is COMPLETELY in accordance with Indian Law onlee. What brilliance of the MMS-Babus to have included the Chankian clause "In accordance with National Laws"!!!

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

Postby svinayak » 07 Aug 2007 23:25

ldev wrote:

But one way or another I believe the UPA will get the votes necessary. See how they pulled off Pratiba Patil's election as President. Whom did they coopt? :wink: Now who would have thunk that would happen?


Election of President is different from the foreign policy. Election of President is by consensus and opposition parties are usually co opted and they cooperate to elect an unanimous President.

Nuclear deal is something comparable to the 1947 year and will need reconciliation about the future ( and not about the past).

I know there is glee in noting that NDA and other opposition are not able to veto the deal and UPA will take the hog. The best would have been the UPA or its predecessor to have tested and made the deal themselves instead of making this drama. They don't want to take the rap for testing but want to take all the glory of the successful deal. This is the bottom line.

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

Postby CRamS » 07 Aug 2007 23:25

Arun_S wrote:After all the din The Lion "uvacha"

India in a nuclear trap

Manmohan Singh has struck a beggar’s bargain, by taking whatever was offered to him

Bharat Karnad



Indeed. Along with the other Lion, BC, they have have ripped open the euphoria of MMS's spin misters. Now, clearly BC/BK have read the 123, and offered their opinions. I'd like to see the Lioness, Arundhati Ghose actually read the 123 and suggest if she is as supportive as she was prior to reading the 123 and taking MMS's spin for granted.

[quote]

The core problem is the seriously debilitating conviction of the Prime Minister that India can attain great power rank the easy way—by piggybacking on the US. Here President George W. Bush’s rhetoric of helping India become a “major powerâ€

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

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2007 23:27

What India has signed is subject to Indian laws, I HOPE!


What Indian Law?

Yeah, the 123 agreement says it is subject to National Laws. What did they expect? That the US would sign an agreement that is NOT subject to US laws?


After the Hyde Act was passed India should have thanked them profusely and gone home. It was, is and will always be a dud for India.

The US could and can do anything it wants. Pass a law that says Mehico is part of the US.

So what stops India from having new laws, that carefully keep the agreement viable, but stop all the things that the Chickens Little and EBs are upset about?


What purpose would it serve?

Follow Aks and be happy.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2007 23:32

[quote]Trick or treat
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Posted online: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 at 0000 hrs /Indian Express
There is an artificial, and dangerous, with us or against us division on the N-deal

Whether or not one endorses the 123 Agreement, it is something of a credit to the artfulness of India’s negotiators. But its ambiguities suggest that it is not the agreement itself, but its subsequent circumstances and interpretations that will determine how good it is for India. Critics of the deal should acknowledge that it could turn out to be greatly beneficial; but equally supporters of the deal should acknowledge the ways in which it could act as a serious fetter. Instead of focusing on the text, it is more useful to think about the conditions under which it will work to our advantage. The agreement’s soundness depends on your estimate of these conditions obtaining; as it also depends upon the still unresolved question of what our larger strategic doctrine is.

Thomas Jefferson once argued, “On the subject of treaties, our system is to have none with any nation as far as can be avoided. We believe that with nations as with individuals, dealings may be carried out advantageously, perhaps more so, while their continuance depends on a voluntary good treatment as if fixed by contract which, when it becomes injurious to either, is made by forced constructions to mean what suits them and becomes a cause of war instead a bond of peace.â€

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

Changing tack

Postby sunilUpa » 07 Aug 2007 23:34

Internet is such a wonderful tool...an article from 2000, on BJP govt. changing postion on CTBT.

Changing tack

IT is life after death. Two months after it was given an inglorious burial by the U.S. Senate, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is being resurrected in Indian policy debates. Recent weeks have witnessed a succession of statements from the Governm ent about its intention to begin a broad-based process of consultations on the CTBT. The aim is evidently to evolve a new national consensus, in its substance the polar opposite of the views prevalent across the political spectrum till as recently as 199 8.

The effort by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Government involves a drastic revision of India's nuclear posture as it has evolved over the years. In a recent interview, External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh spelt out the basic tenets of the BJP's new re visionism: "Our stand on the CTBT has been clear. In 1996, we decided that we could not accept the CTBT because it was not consistent with India's national security interests. Over the decades, successive governments took necessary steps to safeguard Ind ia's nuclear option. In 1996, it was clear to all that subscription to the CTBT would have limited India's nuclear potential at an unacceptably low level. After conducting the nuclear tests of May 1998, to validate and update our technology, we have ensu red the credibility of our nuclear deterrent into the foreseeable future; our scientists are now confident of conducting sub-critical tests, as also other non-explosive R&D activity necessary for the purpose." (The Hindu, November 30, 1999).

For anybody who is familiar with all facets of the Indian position during the CTBT negotiations, these locutions must seem uncomfortably simplistic. "National security" came into the reckoning as a motivating factor for India virtually at the last gasp, when the draft of the CTBT had been agreed at the Conference on Disarmament (C.D.) in Geneva, and every nation was required to state an unambiguous position. Even so, it was hedged around by a number of other commitments, notably those towards ending res earch on nuclear arms and working out a time-table for the elimination of these weapons of mass destruction.

In March 1996, Foreign Secretary Salman Haidar put India's case before the C.D. in the following terms: "We do not believe that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is essential for national security, and we have followed a conscious decision in this regar d. We are also convinced that the existence of nuclear weapons diminishes international security. We therefore, seek their complete elimination."

Just a few months earlier, India had put forward an impassioned plea before the International Court of Justice at The Hague, as the court deliberated on the legality of nuclear arms: "Use of nuclear weapons in any armed conflict... even by way of reprisa l or retaliation... is unlawful... Since the production and manufacture of nuclear weapons can only be with the objective of their use, it must follow that... their production and manufacture cannot under any circumstances be considered as permitted... T he threat of use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance, whether as a means or method of warfare or otherwise, is illegal and unlawful under international law."

THIS fundamental alteration of a deep pacifist commitment into an uncritical willingness to build and deploy an arsenal of nuclear weapons is comprehensible in terms of two connected events: the ascent to power of the BJP in March 1998 and its precipitat e decision to detonate nuclear explosions in the Rajasthan desert some two months later. This was followed by an expected level of international outcry and a phase of disorientation and strategic confusion in political circles. Without a defined mandate or locus standi, Jaswant Singh, then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, initiated a long-running dialogue with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, ostensibly with the aim of restoring a sense of order to bilateral relations. Th e moves now being initiated in the domestic political arena could credibly be read as the logical finale of this dialogue. Its final reward, an outcome that the BJP-led Government seems dearly to wish for, is a visit by the U.S. President to India in 200 0, before the election process transforms Bill Clinton into a lame-duck chief executive.

The CTBT dialogue is already under way within the community of nuclear-strategic analysts. It is partly premised on the public affirmation by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, R. Chidambaram, that the Indian nuclear deterrent can be built and credibly maintained on the basis of available knowledge. Implicitly this has been a prevalent motif in all official statements issued by the AEC since the Pokhran tests of May 1998.

In 1996, India criticised the CTBT for its failure to put an end to the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons through sub-critical testing and computer simulations. On the day of the first tests in May 1998, a statement by the Government drew pointe d attention to India's intent to utilise precisely these lacunae of the treaty: "These tests... are expected to carry Indian scientists towards a sound computer simulation capability which may be supported by sub-critical experiments, if considered neces sary."

Precisely these points were underlined in a joint statement issued by the Department of Atomic Energy and the Defence Research and Development Organisation on May 17, 1998: "These tests have significantly enhanced our capability in computer simulation of new designs and taken us to the stage of sub-critical experiments in the future, if considered necessary."
:evil:

Declarations of intent and ability in the nuclear realm have the curious property that they are easily taken as authentic, since the risks involved in putting them to the test are forbidding. These statements of the nuclear science establishment provided the basis for Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee's statement in Parliament in December 1998 that India would maintain a moratorium on nuclear testing, but proceed with establishing a "minimum nuclear deterrent".

This provided the broad political guidance for the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) to put together a draft Indian Nuclear Doctrine in August 1999. The suspension of democratic accountability in an electoral interregnum did not seem to deter the N SAB as it set about crafting a doctrine of "minimum credible deterrence". In the formal sense, the draft nuclear doctrine marked a decisive break with India's time-honoured commitment to the position that deterrence in the nuclear realm is little more th an a form of self-delusion.

CLEARLY, the dialogue on the CTBT will also involve an effort by the Government to win broad political endorsement for the doctrine of "minimum credible deterrence". The naysayers in this context take their inspiration from two diametrically opposite poi nts of the political spectrum. The right-wing element insists that the Pokhran tests have not yet validated the range of weapons options that India will need to explore in order to establish a deterrent force. And since the momentum for a global nuclear test ban has faltered on account of the Senate's rejection of the CTBT, they insist that India should retain its options for a while longer.

The Left-wing element points out, with great credibility, that the history of the nuclear age amply shows how it is futile to expect a programme of weapons induction to remain constrained by minimalist strivings. But from this fairly robust premise, a di vergence of tactical approaches is apparent. One group of Left-wing strategic thinkers believes that the CTBT in being a definite, if incomplete, measure of restraint, would have a positive effect in dampening the dangerous spiral of militarist rhetoric. Another group maintains that the original reasons that led India to reject the CTBT remain, which provides no substantive basis for the country to recant. Both groups, however, concur on the need to throw the doctrine of "minimum credible deterrence" ou t of court and to resume dialogue with hostile neighbours on the understanding that the nuclear threat would be kept out of the bargain.

The political parties are yet to articulate clearly their positions, since they claim to be awaiting a formal invitation to dialogue from the Government. K. Natwar Singh, convener of the Congress(I)'s foreign policy cell, insists that it is for the Gover nment to state its position first. The kind of "private enterprise" practised by Jaswant Singh in his dialogue with Strobe Talbott has no place in evolving a policy consensus, says Natwar Singh. :rotfl:

Mani Shankar Aiyar, another influential foreign policy commentator within the Congress(I), believes that the Government's motives in seeking accession to the CTBT are fundamentally flawed. Jaswant Singh's brief in negotiating the terms of accession has o bviously been to secure the relaxation of the sanctions and technology denial regimes that the U.S. put in place after India's nuclear tests. This, in turn, would only be used to buttress India's claims to being a military power with a nuclear capability . Mani Shankar Aiyar decries the entire effort to tie up India's position on a major international treaty with Clinton's visit. If India believes that it is in a position to win concessions from the U.S., then it should stay focussed on the goal of unive rsal nuclear disarmament. Towards this cause, Mani Shankar Aiyar recently put together a team of international law experts to update the Rajiv Gandhi disarmament proposals that were presented to the U.N. General Assembly in 1988. His initiative awaits th e formal approval of higher councils within the Congress(I).

The Left parties are sceptical of the Government's latest moves on the CTBT. They believe that the deeper purpose is to arrive at an accommodation with the U.S. that would accord a degree of recognition to India's strategic pre-eminence in the region. Ho wever, this will be at the cost of rising tensions with already estranged neighbours. Heck these guys are consistent
Pre-eminence and peace may be conflicting objectives in a volatile and impoverished region. And nuclear arms clearly are no remedy for the fundamental problems afflicting South Asia.

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

Postby ldev » 07 Aug 2007 23:37

All right. Bharat Karnad has been consistently for testing without regard to the political party in power as evidenced by the rediff interview of 2000 posted by N Rao. And frankly as I stated in the past, India should have tested over a 6 month to 1 year period beginning in May 1998, refining its design as it went along. At this point of time, IMO it just does not make sense. However in the future, should the security situation deteriorate, India can always test to validate any improvements made in the design and yield of its weapons. There may or may not be a cost associated with that test. Just as there may not may not be a cost associated with an Indian test even without the 123 agreement being signed. In that sense the cost to India is the same with or without a 123 agreement. Folks here are worried about those additional 15,000MW-22500MW of nuke capacity added over the next few years and what will happen to that. But that attitude is like saying:

We do not want to have air conditioning because one day the power company may cut off our electricity and how will we then manage


i.e. it is better to be 100% guaranteed miserable for the next 40 years with perpetual power cuts rather than get used to a life with more electricity because we are afraid we will get used to the good life and there is a faint possibility that somebody may yank the good life from under us. This attitude is something like Mahatma Gandhi's wearing only the barest of clothes at all times. Unfortunately I think that in today's India, the aspirations of the bulk of the people are much higher than that, even if jingos on BRF think along the Mahatma's line.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 07 Aug 2007 23:44

The central tent-pole of Karnad's tent is the assertion:
the decisive quality of the premier great power attribute in the modern age, namely, a versatile thermonuclear arsenal,


This is an unsupported assertion, reflective of a complete lack of ability to think outside what was true 30 years ago. Not to mention, a dangerous level of detachment from reality.

No nation today is powerful simply because of a "versatile thermonuclear arsenal". Let's see the SuperPowers by Karnad's definition:

1. Ukraine
2. Russia (particularly, Siberia)
3. Kazakhstan
4. China
5. France
6. USA
7. United Poodledom
8. Israel? (How many times has Israel tested? Would you bet on its weapons not working?)

I don't know if Georgia has them too, and Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? Azerbaijan? Armenia? You see, I don't know, and I don't care.

Who's here that India would like to emulate? And is that because they have big bums or golas?

Who's NOT here that India would like to emulate?

1. Japan 2. Australia 3. Germany

Karnad is playing on the la-la-land imaginings of desis. Ancient Grandeur - Chandragupta Vikramaditya's Empire mulitplied 100 times. The DOO, sweeping regally past hordes of foreigners, all kneeling and bowing out of awe and respect for the Versatile ThermoNuclear Arsenal behind the DOO.

If you think about it for 5 seconds you realize what is wrong with this.

To get to the level of France, India would have to test about 100 times more, at minimum. Including some 20 or so super-megaton blasts. What do you think will be left of the Indian economy, and the DOO industry, as India goes through that?

Are we ready to "test" enough to validate our entire arsenal for the next 100 years? Or only for the next 5 years?

How exactly will this Versatile Thermonuclear Arsenal guarantee our Great Powerness? Like Iran and North Korea are held in awe?

Like FRANCE? :rotfl: :rotfl: France is tottering on the verge of takeover by the Islamists, and so is "Great" Britain, and all their Versatile Thermonuclear Arse-e-nulls are absolutely no use against Abdul coming in with the Sports Drink bottle.. or Ayesha with the suicide belt under the burkha. France's main problem is that they can't decide who to surrender to, this time.

UQ is "powerful" only because they are the doormats for the Americans.

Russia is "powerful" in the sense that it is considered armed and dangerous, but has very little clout in anything because it has no hard cash, and little goodwill worldwide.

So Karnad wants India to keep testing megaton bombs, say, once a year for the next 40 years, 25 bombs at a pop? How else is the "testing" going to be satisfactory?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 08 Aug 2007 00:02

The point is very simple be it great or super power the thermo nukes may be. It can never thought about one being exploded in the planet ever without the whole world going against it, be it a hyde, or sanction law or no law at all. From people's wish, that no nuke test should happen any more is what we need to focus on.

I think the argument is to ensure that we have not giving into the other poodling equations rather having some rights to do the themos. Coming to brass-tacks, is it really necessary now this deal to get NSG fuel..? if not, why sign it, for a later kaiko-mera-balls-squash-ki situation?

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

Postby bala » 08 Aug 2007 00:03

People opposing the 123 deal have to answer the following questions (at the minimum):

1) How do you add roughly 200, 000 MW over the next 10 years growing at GDP rates of 10%. Money, fuel and environment should be considered.

2) How do you manage/contain a rising China whose political/economic clout is increasingly threatening India's rise.


People for the 123 deal have to answer the following questions:

1) How does India grow its economy independent of US influences and conduct an independent foreign policy taking into careful consideration long term outlook

2) How does one deal with the US-Pak-Saudi Axis while courting US


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests