India Nuclear News & Discussion - 13 Aug 2007

Locked
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

India Nuclear News & Discussion - 13 Aug 2007

Post by bala »

Old Thread is here
-Arun_S {Admin hat on}
______________________________

Besides mortgaging her thinking to the village idiot her highness Jyothi Malhotra, regurgitates repeated lies from NPT Ayatollahs:
allegedly by siphoning off fissile material from a 40-megawatt research reactor given by Canada
Another one of those conspiracy rumors reiterated umpteen times till it becomes the truth.
Canadian non-proliferation experts argue that Delhi used the tritium and plutonium produced by CANDU clones to power its military nuclear programme.
NPT Ayatollahs spin again. Tritium extraction is not your father's buick process by any stretch of the imagination. India invented/patented the process by detriation/chemical process that produced tons of Tritrium. In contrast, the US spent billions of dollars using a convoluted method for Tritrium extraction.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

SunilUPA wrote:

Author is confusing it with a picture of a rocket part being carried on a Cycle, with two scientists walking next to it.

Image
Hi Sunil,

These pictures appear to have been taken before the 80s/90s, going by the virgin landscape and the look of the photographs -- do you have a rough time of when these pictures were taken?

Added later: Thanks Much, Gerard.
Last edited by Rye on 14 Aug 2007 00:51, edited 1 time in total.
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Post by sunilUpa »

I may be mistaken on Apple being built in ISAC, I think it was built in old Peenya centre.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

There are plenty of journalists in India who write such articles simply because it pays (literally) to pander to the moral masturbation some countries - in particular Canada, the Scandinavians, and Australia - indulge in. The bigger "Western" countries, in power terms, had this issue too, but they are getting over it much faster than these two in particular which are still stuck with 1970s TV clip images of India. Jyoti knows of course that writing that sort of article gives just the sort of reassurance these countries need. She, too, serves a purpose in her way, although the **** does not know it...

I mean, like there aren't enough articles detailing poverty in India or the floods...she had to bring it into one about the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Plus she writes like a high-schooler trying to impress her teacher...
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Op-Ed in Deccan Chronicle, 14 August 2007
Kakodkar, Chidambaram are misrepresenting facts
Dr A. Gopalakrishnan

The government in its desperation has fielded both AEC chairman, Dr Anil Kakodkar, and the PM’s principal scientific adviser, Dr R. Chidambaram, to come out and defend the nuclear deal. The Hindu newspaper published their interviews on August 10 and 11. The justifications given by these two officials were not only hollow in view of the focused and informed criticism levelled by several analysts outside the government, but were also devoid of any logic or scientific basis strong enough to elicit public trust in the government’s position.

Dr Kakodkar is undoubtedly one of the very best nuclear engineers in the country. His contributions to the establishment of indigenous nuclear technology base in India are well-known and appreciated. He has a very good understanding of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the associated legal issues. As such, I am deeply disappointed that he is allowing himself to be used by this government, in these last stages of negotiations, to paint an incorrect picture of what has been achieved in the 123 Agreement.

As for Dr Chidambaram, in the past two years, he has not spoken on the nuclear deal and now the PMO has put him forward to defend the deal. We should not forget that his assertion in 1998 that the country had successfully conducted one thermonuclear weapon test, and therefore need not test again, was strongly repudiated at that time by both national and international nuclear weapon experts. That with one failed test you can design and build reliable thermonuclear weapons in future is a myth which only Dr Chidambaram continues to believe. In 1998, it was based on his "scientific advice" that the then Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, declared a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and almost got to the brink of signing the CTBT. The very same scientist is now advising the current PM that there is no need to conduct any more weapon tests and, therefore, the Hyde Act stipulations and the 123 Agreement in this regard can be accepted.

We need to examine closely what Dr Kakodkar recently stated during his lukewarm support of the nuclear deal. In justifying the need for import of reactors, he says, "Even in the programme of 20,000 MWe of nuclear power by 2020 … there was a provision for eight imported LWRs of 1,000 MWe each." However, in Table 11 of the DAE document titled "A Strategy for Growth of Electrical Energy in India," the DAE admits that based on the indigenous programme and depending solely on uranium available in India, we will be able to generate about 7,860 MWe of power from heavy-water reactors and 89,500 MWe of power from fast breeders by 2042. The additional power we may be able to get from the 8,000 MWe imported LWRS, and by using their resulting plutonium in breeder reactors will only be a total of 34,000 MWe. So are we not satisfied with the growth of a totally indigenous programme, including thorium breeders, which will produce about 97,360 MWe by 2042 (and a whopping 205,560 MWe of totally indigenous nuclear power by 2052, according to the DAE), especially when this can be done with no associated foreign shackles? Why didn’t Kakodkar highlight this statistics from his own department’s document, instead of making the country feel that foreign reactors are a necessity for establishing a healthy three-stage programme? These DAE estimates also belie the PM’s assertion that he is getting into this deal mainly to enhance India’s energy security.

Asked about the cloud of uncertainty still existing about the uninterrupted supply of fuel for imported reactors, Dr Kakodkar gives a convoluted reply which clearly skirts the central weakness of the 123 Agreement, which the Indian negotiators are trying their best to hide. I have last week pointed out in detail that it was a blunder to copy in toto Section 15 of the March 2006 Separation Plan as Article 5.6 in the 123 Agreement of July 2007, which merely makes a promise to take up the matter of fuel assurance with the US Congress and get the laws (read it as Hyde Act 2006) amended to get us this assurance. Only in December 2006, the Congress had thrown out the administration’s identical request on behalf of India, while formulating the Hyde Act. Dr Kakodkar fully understands this deficiency, but goes along with this deliberate misrepresentation of the truth on behalf of the government, even though he has no counter-point to offer for the criticism levelled. He appears to rely on the naïve confidence conveyed to him by the PMO and the MEA that the Americans have "committed" to get this done, and resigns himself to the plea that this is the "best we could get." But certainly this is not good enough for the country, and we are shocked to find a person of his standing trying to defend the indefensible.

Dr Kakodkar also keeps parroting the PMO position that the 123 Agreement provides for "corrective measures that India may take to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors." What are these magical measures which the Indian establishment has in mind, and why are they kept in such high secrecy? The answer is that there are no such measures possible, and it is purely a bluff to mislead Indian Parliament and the public. A retaliatory measure could have been to withdraw the reactors from IAEA safeguards, if fuel supply is denied. But after signing a safeguards agreement to keep these reactors under perpetual safeguards, such a step will attract serious international action against India, including a Chapter 7 resolution at the UN Security Council, leading to severe sanctions on the country. Or do these measures we are thinking of include clandestine purchases of fuel from illegal sources? India will never do that, since we have always maintained an impeccable record on nuclear imports and will not stoop to that level under any circumstance. So, in spite of layers of consultations built into this 123 Agreement and the overwhelming mutual confidence and bonhomie between the PM and US President George W. Bush, the imported reactors in India, and all the downstream industries which depend on them, will remain on stand-still when fuel supply is interrupted.

On the granting of US permission to reprocess foreign spent-fuel, the agreement says the mutual consultations for this purpose will start in six months from the date of the request and it will be completed in one year. What if it takes several years instead, because of deviatory bickering by the US? The only countercheck to prevent the US from delaying the final, one-time approval is to insist that India will not place purchase orders for any US nuclear reactor until this permission is formally granted, along with Congressional approval. Why didn’t Dr Kakodkar insist on a clause to this effect incorporated in the 123 Agreement?

On the supply of technologies and equipment for reprocessing, enrichment and heavy-water plants, the agreement says an amendment to this agreement is required. On related dual-use items, it is stated that this will be subject to national laws. So, there is no success achieved in these areas by our team, and the PM’s promises to Parliament stand unfulfilled. And yet, Dr Kakodkar says "…there is a positive forward-looking provision on transfers. It prevents an outlook of targeting these facilities… So it is a satisfactory arrangement." I disagree with his assessment.

Lastly, look at Dr Kakodkar’s unconvincing and evasive answers to all crucial queries put to him. Asked, "Are you satisfied in all these areas?", he says, "I think so." At another place, he says "…the unilateral moratorium on testing remains as such… So, I think it is satisfactory." Regarding transfer of sensitive technologies, the questioner asks "Does it mean it requires the ratification of Congress?" and Dr Kakodkar says, "I think, perhaps yes." The questioner continues: "So, there is full civil nuclear cooperation?" The answer he gives is, "I think so." Finally, he is asked, "In sum, do you feel that this agreement is in consonance with the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement and the Separation Plan?" And, Dr Kakodkar says, "I think so… I already said this is a satisfactory arrangement."

Are these the kind of answers we expect from an AEC chairman who fully participated in four days of negotiations with the Americans and signed off an 123 Agreement as fulfilling the PM’s promises to Parliament? His answers do not carry conviction and he has no valid justifications to present. Dr Kakodkar being a man of integrity, technical excellence and ethical roots, appears to be in a great dilemma, trying to strike a balance between what his conscience tells him to do and what the PM, the PMO and the MEA are compelling him to do. Many of us who have known him for decades would have liked to see him take a more courageous stand in the interest of the nation.

Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board of Indian government, can be reached at agk37@hotmail.com
I guess he doesn't think much of RC to rebut his statements. So not only the politybut the sci com is divided over this deal.

AND
What PM said; What facts say


1 "The United States has a longstanding policy of not supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities."

Wrong. The Hyde Act’s Explanatory Statement itself notes that cooperation in the areas of uranium enrichment, reprocessing of spent fuel and heavy water production "is not restricted" under the Atomic Energy Act, "but agreements for cooperation must specify if such cooperation is to take place".

It also notes that the 123 agreement with Australia specifically allows for such cooperation.


2 "There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India will be subject to an annual certification process."

Wrong. In the Hyde Act it is explicitly mandated that the President has to send his annual "assessment" to Congress on whether "India is in full compliance" with its various US-imposed "commitments and obligations," including on Iran, and whether the "activities and programmes funded under" the legislation "are achieving the goals."

3"There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India’s security and defence needs."

Wrong. A test prohibition against India has been methodically built into its provisions through the incorporation of the US "right to return". Besides the test ban, the US Congress has sought to subject India’s nuclear-weapons programme to sustained US scrutiny.

4 "An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the Agreement."

Consultations are for PR and thus meaningless. In essen-ce, what India has got is the right to consultation while the US has the right to decisions.
Should the deal be handled by a different government?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Ramana,

That was bound to happen. I had complained about fracturing Indians. It is only the beginning. MMS IS a very nice human, but has got India into a huge mess with little returns. The benefits of this deal is not worth the fracturing of relations within India. IMHO of course.
But after signing a safeguards agreement to keep these reactors under perpetual safeguards, such a step will attract serious international action against India, including a Chapter 7 resolution at the UN Security Council, leading to severe sanctions on the country.
This, IF true, is very serious. It is worse than Iranian position today.

AK had wanted total Indian control. MMS seems to have signed off on the opposite. And, today AK just nods.

I feel that at a minimum the deal needs to be debated in the parliament and voted on. MMS also needs to come out against the Hyde Act - even of it is internal to the US.

Also, IF the DAE numbers are right, why does India need this deal?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

imho, can't take sides here now.. we need to painstakenly listen to both sides of the arguments.

also we need to consider the other factors, e.g:- technological innovations and product risk that is lengthening deployment of strategic programs. BARC is in a way telling that they are succumbing to time pressures [i shudn't be talking specifics here.. (juz highlighting)generally speaking, say x-future project/product].

btw, we need to also research what does Gopalakrishnan gets by rebutting AK and RC? It could be his political ties, his backfire of certain events during his stay at DAE, etc..

we need to look at it from non-personal angle, and get the subject specific arguments (alsoo).
Last edited by SaiK on 14 Aug 2007 02:54, edited 2 times in total.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
I keep wondering why so ex, former, blah, blah people write such authoritative opinions like as if they are in complete know of things current. AERB ain't BARC/DAE R&D. Wow, Dr A. G. has the temerity to besmirch Dr. A. K. and Dr. R. C. two outstanding gentlemen who have done more for the nation than regulate a board. Forget all the platitudes prefaced for these gentlemen, they do have what it takes to be conscious scientists with responsiblity much more that Dr. A. G. pretends to have. We all know the antics of Dr. A. G. when he was at AERB.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

N-deal: VP Singh seeks PM's resignation
Pioneer.com
Akhilesh Suman | New Delhi
'Left has two choices - save nation or Govt'
Jan Morcha leader and former Prime Minister VP Singh on Sunday joined the brigade against the Indo-US nuclear deal and demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

He also asked the Left parties to withdraw their support to the UPA Government "in national interests".

Singh, who has been supporting the Congress-led UPA Government since its inception on several issues, has been criticising the proposed civil nuclear deal for the last one week. On Sunday, he mounted a campaign against the Prime Minister.

"When it is clear that the majority of members of Parliament are against the deal on which he has staked his name, I am sure, his conscience will dictate the Prime Minister to resign," Singh told the media.

The Mandal messiah, who had once raised alarm in the country over Bofors defence deal, said on further clarification, "Manmohan Singh should resign." Saying that the "Cabinet constitutes of PM's own chosen men", the former Prime Minister said, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was ignoring the opinion of the majority of MPs.

"If the Prime Minister cannot renegotiate the deal, then he should terminate it," he said and added," if he cannot do even this, then we will have to find a Prime Minister who would do so."Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had earlier said that there was no scope for "renegotiating" the deal.

This is the first time, VP Singh who is close to the Left and many of the UPA partners, has come out in open to ask for PM's resignation.

The Jan Morcha leader alleged that the Prime Minister did not answer any of the queries put up by either the Left or other political parties.

"I have also written a letter to the Prime Minister but did not get any reply," he said.

VP Singh also attacked the Left parties for not pressing the debate on Indo-US nuclear deal under rule 184 that allows voting.

"The hard fact is that the choice has to be made (by the Left) whether we save the country or we save the Government," he asked the Left leaders who had said that there was no threat to the Government.

"Left parties should withdraw the support," he said, adding that if the Left did not withdraw the support from the UPA Government, the "credibility of the Left would be in question.

Singh said that he would talk to CPI (M) chief Prakash Karat on Monday.

"Having declared that the present Government has not taken care of the "national interests" then it would be inconsistent to support such a Government," he told the Left parties.

Entering into polemical debate with the Left for the first time, the former Prime Minister said, "What is the use of mass campaign against the deal, once the deal is already signed."

Raising a doubt over the intention of the UPA Government, VP Singh said that it was more urgent to act now because, in its remaining tenure, this Government could enter into contracts on advance for import of nuclear plants and uranium from the US and commit country heavily making difficult for the future Governments to terminate the agreement.
Last edited by svinayak on 14 Aug 2007 02:57, edited 1 time in total.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

ramana wrote:Op-Ed in Deccan Chronicle, 14 August 2007
Whoa! Is this person reputable?
Last edited by samuel on 14 Aug 2007 02:58, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Since it is not signed, there is no question about termination of the deal.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

NRao wrote:Since it is not signed, there is no question about termination of the deal.
didn't they sign on the agreement papers / drafts thus far?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

I thought Rice and Pranabda were supposed to autograph it. Only then it was complete. Could be wrong.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

ref: 03pr01.pdf from mea. pg 22:-
FOR the GOVERNMENT________________FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
OF INDIA___________________________UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Last edited by SaiK on 14 Aug 2007 03:21, edited 3 times in total.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

NRao wrote: That was bound to happen. I had complained about fracturing Indians. It is only the beginning.
Is the right thing to do here to put this to a vote? But since its all up or down now, there is obviously no way to JPC and renegotiate; and even doing that won't fetch anything else from the US.

I sure hope we arrive at the truths, and rally together around them, rather than walk away split and splintered. I think even before we say we are for or against the deal, it might be worth just getting the facts straight...arguments have been eloquent on both sides.

I had thought we were stuck in a weak limit cycle and slowly converging, but now it appears the differences are getting more stark.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

SaiK wrote:
NRao wrote:Since it is not signed, there is no question about termination of the deal.
didn't they sign on the agreement papers / drafts thus far?
ARTICLE 16 - ENTRY INTO FORCE AND DURATION

1. This Agreement shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties exchange diplomatic notes informing each other that they have completed all applicable requirements for its entry into force.
ShyamSP
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2564
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by ShyamSP »

samuel wrote:
NRao wrote: That was bound to happen. I had complained about fracturing Indians. It is only the beginning.
Is the right thing to do here to put this to a vote? But since its all up or down now, there is obviously no way to JPC and renegotiate; and even doing that won't fetch anything else from the US.

I sure hope we arrive at the truths, and rally together around them, rather than walk away split and splintered. I think even before we say we are for or against the deal, it might be worth just getting the facts straight...arguments have been eloquent on both sides.

I had thought we were stuck in a weak limit cycle and slowly converging, but now it appears the differences are getting more stark.
I think parliament should note all objections and get clarifications from those pushing the deal and pass a resolution that it is the parliament interpretation of the deal and then approve this deal. This way MMS assurances can be tied to that resolution. If anything goes against what is interpreted in the resolution, it should automatically trigger cessation of the deal. I suspect this is what BJP is trying to do.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

hey.. well put shyamSP.. way to go man putting the right thoughts here.
nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Post by nkumar »

ShyamSP wrote:
I think parliament should note all objections and get clarifications from those pushing the deal and pass a resolution that it is the parliament interpretation of the deal and then approve this deal. This way MMS assurances can be tied to that resolution. If anything goes against what is interpreted in the resolution, it should automatically trigger cessation of the deal. I suspect this is what BJP is trying to do.
That is the right thing to do, but I have serious doubts whether it will happen. Just look at the attitude of the GoI. They did not want international treaties to be ratified by the Parliament, they did not even agree to JPC looking into the deal and BJP's objections are termed as "worst kind of hypocrisy" [it is another matter that BJP being in opposition will oppose anything done by the GoI], though they have agreed to answer the criticism raised by Left but have they answered the Left?
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

Groom's Parents -> Boy :: Girl <- Bride's Parents
Parliament -> MMS :: BUSH <- Congress
This is just the dance of the boy and girl who just decided to get hitched. The relatives (opposition, NPAs, etc) on both sides are going to make a lot of demands. Keeps the Parents on both sides in line thinking about their children's welfare. If the girl gets coy or the boy gets bold and demands a lot, both lose.

Seems like regularly programmed arranged marriage festivities :mrgreen:
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ramana wrote:Op-Ed in Deccan Chronicle, 14 August 2007
Kakodkar, Chidambaram are misrepresenting facts
Dr A. Gopalakrishnan

... .. . .As for Dr Chidambaram, in the past two years, he has not spoken on the nuclear deal and now the PMO has put him forward to defend the deal. We should not forget that his assertion in 1998 that the country had successfully conducted one thermonuclear weapon test, and therefore need not test again, was strongly repudiated at that time by both national and international nuclear weapon experts. That with one failed test you can design and build reliable thermonuclear weapons in future is a myth which only Dr Chidambaram continues to believe. In 1998, it was based on his "scientific advice" that the then Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, declared a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and almost got to the brink of signing the CTBT. The very same scientist is now advising the current PM that there is no need to conduct any more weapon tests and, therefore, the Hyde Act stipulations and the 123 Agreement in this regard can be accepted.

.. . . . . . Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board of Indian government, can be reached at agk37@hotmail.com
I guess he doesn't think much of RC to rebut his statements. So not only the polity but the sci com is divided over this deal.
After 1998 test Dr P K Iyengar, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission had the fortitude to come out openly and question the success of the Shakti-1 Thermonuclear weapon test. Clearly even former AEC chairman Dr P K Iyengar did not know what was the DOE plan (Design of Experiment), the weapon configuration, its settings and expected yield. Later he changed his position gradually reconciling to partial test failure position saying at best only 10% fusion fuel was burnt. If Dr Iyengar did not know that S1 test was not a fixed yield design but a variable yield TN design whose maximum yield was classified. RChidambram openly rediculed Dr Iyengar's viewpoint as PKI does not know what was tested. As time progressed and perhaps more info was brought to PKI's ears he mellowed his position, yet sticking to the scientific principle that statistical reliability stems from more tests. {This position BTW strengthened Indian position against pso-op of NPA}

The NASB tried to connect RC & Iyengar so that they will talk and sort this open spat, but R Chidambram's refused to talk to PK Iyengar giving a curt response saying that "Iyengar is a chemical scientist what does he know?".

Pray what is the reach of Dr A. Gopalakrishnan (Compared to Dr Iyengar Former Chairmen AEC) in getting classified weapons configuration information and to base his personal evaluation to repudiate the yield claims of 1998 test. Ahh.. .. . but he does tries to shoot using proxy putting the rifle on others people's shoulders; Dr A. Gopalakrishnan former Chairman of the AERB should be the expert himself; or was he a political appointee ;).

The arguments of Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, a former Chairman of AERB of Indian government does-not carry any water and are ludicrous when he tries to peddle the statement
"was strongly repudiated at that time by both national and international nuclear weapon experts."

Pity when former Chairman of the AERB has to use other experts who have far less or NO access to Indian government information or the way it works :twisted: :twisted:
Last edited by Arun_S on 14 Aug 2007 06:30, edited 2 times in total.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

I presume you've all read this article from The Telegraph implicating BJP/NDA in the 123 deal?

Well, if that's the case, then it gives me more confidence in the deal, as I trust the party of Pokhran-2 to not sell out the nuclear interests.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan writes:
[Pokharan II] was strongly repudiated at that time by both national and international nuclear weapon experts."
Arun-ji, Thanks. I think this about nails Dr. A. G.'s position as a politically partisan one intent on generating more heat than light. If he is going to quote MV Ramana and George Perkovich to explain himself, he has lost all credibility.

It is a pity that people who can explain the truth to the public are more intent on scoring political points instead of trying to get to the truth of the matter.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Sanjay M wrote:I presume you've all read this article from The Telegraph implicating BJP/NDA in the 123 deal?

Well, if that's the case, then it gives me more confidence in the deal, as I trust the party of Pokhran-2 to not sell out the nuclear interests.
Some in the opposition advised, but did not formulate the negotiations, or did they?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Rye wrote:Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan writes:
[Pokharan II] was strongly repudiated at that time by both national and international nuclear weapon experts."
Arun-ji, Thanks. I think this about nails Dr. A. G.'s position as a politically partisan one intent on generating more heat than light. If he is going to quote MV Ramana and George Perkovich to explain himself, he has lost all credibility.

It is a pity that people who can explain the truth to the public are more intent on scoring political points instead of trying to get to the truth of the matter.
But, he did with the AK script. AK has gone down a whole bunch of notches. I think the energy component is more important to this discussion than the testing, critical as it is.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

NRao wrote:Ramana,

That was bound to happen. I had complained about fracturing Indians. It is only the beginning. MMS IS a very nice human, but has got India into a huge mess with little returns.
Krepon predicts this fracturing in the article posted earlier in this thread. They are looking to fracturing and taking advantage of it. Should India allow them?
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

NRao wrote:
But, he did with the AK script. AK has gone down a whole bunch of notches.
Come on now....How is it that AK, the lone-warrior arrayed against all the anti-India forces including the India govt., so quickly dropped from the perch --- all it took was an article by someone who considers Perkovich an international nuclear expert with legitimate views on India's program?

People have started quoting Shireen Mazari and Praful Bidwai on this thread as "talking points against 123". All that remains is for someone to quote Eric Marogoli's article as a legitimate case against the deal...
Last edited by Rye on 14 Aug 2007 06:06, edited 1 time in total.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Rye:U missed Cra - pon above. :roll:

Start the stopwatch - b4 v c Henry Sokolski, Ed Malarkey and Dan Burton quoted as Herrows of Goodwill towards India.

Prakash Karat has already been recruited as Saviour of Bharat.

I guess Dr. Gopalakrishnan must be understudy to Dr. Puneesh Taneja of ISRO..... 8) And both are Shishyas of Adm. "Golf' Nadkarni.

Glad to hear that India has always obeyed the NPT - the tests conducted by the BJP were all failures, timed to occur around the time of an earthquake around the Pokhran area caused by Jayalalitha visiting.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 14 Aug 2007 06:00, edited 1 time in total.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Rye right on..
This thread is becoming quite ridiculous with people posting Profool, Round as Shrillene, Perky and CPI&M clowns as the defacto opinion makers. What a hoot.

Dr. A. G. had this huge tiff with DAE with his claim that things are not safeguarded properly i.e. radiation leak etc. with Dr. R.C and this was on some TV program sometime ago with western supercillious experts questioning the competence of Indian nuclear operations. Dr. R. C. did a competent job defending Indian operations. In retrospect, this was slime job by Dr. A. G. in cahoots with the NPT Ayatallohs, IAEA nosy types and India baiters.

I have more faith in true pioneers like Dr. R. C., Dr. Ramanna, Dr. A. K., Dr. Sikka and other dedicated scientists of DAE.
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Ananth »

The KP Nayar article just reeks of massive suck up. Guess UPA is practicing Saam Dam Dand Bhed neeti, not necessarily in that order.
mayurav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 15 Apr 2006 06:47
Location: Banavasi

Post by mayurav »

A retaliatory measure could have been to withdraw the reactors from IAEA safeguards, if fuel supply is denied.
This is a extremely effective clause that should have been taken care of by a domestic Indian law if not in 123 text.

If the main purpose of 123 is economic which is supposed to provide bijli for next 30 years until indiagenious Thorium cycle comes online, then we should have desi Indian laws first (if not in 123 language) to counter Hyde and then sign this. AmirKhans should be happy to get billion $ business for their companies and a sandbox for them to brush up on nuke power plant skills. That is sufficient quid pro quo for India getting foreign uranium. And its not like we are getting uranium from them for free!! We will be paying for it!!

Another quid pro quo that we should have bargained for is giving us half of Yucca mountain waste for some decent amount of $$. We recycle it in our closed cycle and maybe 20 - 30 years down the line help them close their cycle with our refining technology.

And if this deal is going to bring in 20GW of capacity by 2020 then it is not going to be missed. Thats just another 5 ultra mega thermal power stations of 4GW each.

All this India being nuclear outcast is bullshit. So what if we are. Why bring this H&D issue into this deal? Will it hinder ITER participation? Another 20-30 years and with our size and economic and technology clout there is no way we will be outcast.

IMHO we didn't bargain hard. Its not that the deal is disastrous per se. Just not solid enough. Doesn't enthuse me. Lukewarm. So so. MMS and co did not do enough homework at all!!

Pulakesi saar, its more like a reluctant dude who has got involved with this babe and now has to marry her. He is not really kicked with the babe. He stumbled into the relationship and now it is moving towards marriage. Not only are the parents pissed, he himself is unsure.

IMHO of course
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

NPAUllah Perkovich turing Coal

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14026/perkovich.html
Do you think it’s a good agreement?

No. I think it’s flawed for a number of reasons. I have colleagues and friends in the non-proliferation community who think any such agreement with India would be a disaster. I think India’s economic development and overall development is so important from a world historical point of view that we should do a lot to facilitate it. My problem is this particular agreement is first of all, the administration failed to establish criteria under which countries which haven’t signed the non-proliferation treaty could come in to a broader non-proliferation set of rules and not be outside of this system. The three countries that haven’t signed the NPT are India, Israel, and Pakistan. What we should have done in my view is say “here are criteria for each of those that if each of those countries met, they could get some form of increased nuclear cooperation with us.â€
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Missing the point

Post by joshvajohn »

I assume that the main problem with this agreement is that Indians may not conduct a test on their own. But they have highlighted the problem with the US constitution that would stop them supplying to any country that would conduct a test in largescale. At the same time agreed to not stop others supplying the fuel even if India conducts one.

I think in this negotiation there is a lot of give and take between two. It is in the interest of nation that the government has done this. Many of us do not understand more indepth benefits for US and India both energy wise and also military wise. I do not think even BJP has understood it properly. Actually this was originally discussed by the BJP government with US but then dropped somehow. This agreement has lot of stakes for India than for US.

The Marxists are pressurised not by the Chinese but by their own misunderstanding and misguidance of the agreement. I do not know why the Marxists do not want India to be a powerful nation in this part of the world both economically (by having this energy), militarily (developed nuclear powered submarines and rockets in future) and so on.

This takes not to the club of nuclear nations rather to a different order where cooperation between US and others would better develop in future with positive strategies. This will put pressure on our neighbours not to dictate to us what to do as we often have weak democratic governments.

After this agreement only the Chinese has tone down a bit and Pakis have radically changed their attitude. I think Marxists have prepared a ground for disappearing from the subcontinent by playing antination games again!
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

We need to examine closely what Dr Kakodkar recently stated during his lukewarm support of the nuclear deal. In justifying the need for import of reactors, he says, "Even in the programme of 20,000 MWe of nuclear power by 2020 … there was a provision for eight imported LWRs of 1,000 MWe each." However, in Table 11 of the DAE document titled "A Strategy for Growth of Electrical Energy in India," the DAE admits that based on the indigenous programme and depending solely on uranium available in India, we will be able to generate about 7,860 MWe of power from heavy-water reactors and 89,500 MWe of power from fast breeders by 2042. The additional power we may be able to get from the 8,000 MWe imported LWRS, and by using their resulting plutonium in breeder reactors will only be a total of 34,000 MWe. So are we not satisfied with the growth of a totally indigenous programme, including thorium breeders, which will produce about 97,360 MWe by 2042 (and a whopping 205,560 MWe of totally indigenous nuclear power by 2052, according to the DAE), especially when this can be done with no associated foreign shackles? Why didn’t Kakodkar highlight this statistics from his own department’s document, instead of making the country feel that foreign reactors are a necessity for establishing a healthy three-stage programme? These DAE estimates also belie the PM’s assertion that he is getting into this deal mainly to enhance India’s energy security.
What's the rebuttal here? Are the facts here correct? Are the projections reasonable? will the numbers meet the 25% goals?
Looking for answers never mind said messenger.

here are some links
senate testimony
dae doc1
nice tutorial

Grover, R.B. and Chandra, S. (2004)
A strategy for growth of electrical energy in India',. Government of India
200gw by 2052!??? are they just making this up or is it for real?
Last edited by samuel on 14 Aug 2007 06:42, edited 1 time in total.
Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Post by Karan Dixit »

enqyoob wrote:Rye:U missed Cra - pon above. :roll:

Start the stopwatch - b4 v c Henry Sokolski, Ed Malarkey and Dan Burton quoted as Herrows of Goodwill towards India.

Prakash Karat has already been recruited as Saviour of Bharat.

I guess Dr. Gopalakrishnan must be understudy to Dr. Puneesh Taneja of ISRO..... 8) And both are Shishyas of Adm. "Golf' Nadkarni.

Glad to hear that India has always obeyed the NPT - the tests conducted by the BJP were all failures, timed to occur around the time of an earthquake around the Pokhran area caused by Jayalalitha visiting.
Don't forget Arundhati Roy. :)
Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Post by Karan Dixit »

However, the invitation to MMS to visit Crawford Ranch struck me as odd.
Usually Indians never get that kind of fancy treatment from Washington. That kind of treatment is reserved for leaders who tow Washington's line.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

200gw by 2052!??? are they just making this up or is it for real?


Good question. That is the huuuuge flaw in the Gopalakrishnan diatribe. The history of indigenous power production is simply not very encouraging. True, we didn't have money before, and now there is a lot, but I don't see that level of investment coming from indigenous sources.

There simply is not the domestic fuel supply to get these things moving to the point of self-sustaining, in any reasonable length of time.

2052 is a looooong way off. Imagine sitting in 1907, and being happy at being told:
By 1952 you'll have rickshaws with rubber tyres!



(yeah, I know, NRaoji, I am being immature in quoting such trivial examples about this serious hi-tech stuff, but sometimes you have to use common-sense examples).

Or being in 1947 and being told:
By 1992 you'll have indigenously-built DC-3s!


The thinking is too optimistic in predicting the scale of power plants, and way too constricted in imagining much better ways, which will occur if left to healthy international competition to develop those ways.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

enqyoob wrote:
200gw by 2052!??? are they just making this up or is it for real?


Good question. That is the huuuuge flaw in the Gopalakrishnan diatribe. The history of indigenous power production is simply not very encouraging. True, we didn't have money before, and now there is a lot, but I don't see that level of investment coming from indigenous sources.
But Dr. Kakodkar himself quotes this studyhere though i have not studied it completely.
also see others cited...does not appear to be random gimmick. I am not sure whether the disappointing history of indan power production is much different than the disappointing historical baggage with the US. Do you have more quantitative arguments, because that will settle the issue of whether we need to be funding this or something else, if not both. Looking around to see more analysis.
Last edited by samuel on 14 Aug 2007 07:15, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Rye,

My observation of AK fall has nothign to do with this article. You can google and come to your own conclusions.

N^^3,

Your examples. :)

Whatever.

Something does not add up and on this one I do not trust MMS.
Locked