India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Postby Supratik » 18 Aug 2007 23:23

After reading page after page of this thread it seems that we need to ask ourself the question:

Have we tested enough?

If we are sure that we tested enough what is the point in arguing based on what will happen if we test?

If we haven't tested enough we need to do so expeditiously and then get into any treaty. The economic cost of testing is going up with each passing day. In my opinion the tests conducted under ABVP was more for political purposes and less scientific. Otherwise we would not have been talking about what will happen if we test 9 years after the event. To test under threatening situation is silly as there is a significant gap btween testing and weaponisation.

The rest of the treaty is negotiable and seems from Chellaney's article that the US will compensate for whatever it takes back.

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

Postby svinayak » 18 Aug 2007 23:26

enqyoob wrote:Those who think this deal should be scrapped, should please tell us why, without causing us to :rotfl: :rotfl:

____________________________________

I don't think this article by Brahma Chellaney has been posted. It's a few weeks old, but it's an excellent analysis of the spin surrounding this deal. After that, I'm posting his recent analysis of the deal itself.

http://www.asianage.com/presentation/co ... dplay.aspx

Frail deal built on wordplay

Stagecraft & Statecraft | Brahma Chellaney


http://www.asianage.com/archive/htmlfil ... ntext.html

123: text and context

By Brahma Chellaney


Can some pro-deal poster explains all the 12 points pointed out by BC.
No simplistic answers please.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Postby Supratik » 18 Aug 2007 23:26

Seema Mustafa's article is garbage and reflects the anxiety among the Green and Red over close cooperation with the US.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Postby Rahul Mehta » 18 Aug 2007 23:34

abhischekcc wrote:It was the pressure from the IT vity 'leaders' due to which Vajpayee backed down from attacking pakistan in the afternath of the attack on the parliament. .... .


Abhischekbhai,

I agree that our IT-czars took "bribes" in kind (contracts) from US and asked/bribed Indian PM ABV to act like chhakka aka hijada. India lost whatever izzat that was left due to such corrupt IT leaders and PM/MPs. Lack of retaliation created an image that we are a nation of napunsaks (impotents). But I just want to point out --- If I had made such claim, that IT-czars bribed/forced ABV to act like a chhakka, 100s of BRites would have asked me for sources, links etc and offered bribes to admins to expel me. Whereas you get away without any inquiry or assault. Some are more equal than others I guess. :)

---

This 123 deal is result of rampant corruption. Even after all hulla-bulla, the nuclear energy will be mere 10% of total production. That is a best case scenario. And this energy will be of no use for vehicles. For vehicles, we will be still dependent on oil.

Now as per electricity, our best bets are coal, hydro and Thorium. Thanks to defunct SCjs et al, relocation of people in drowned land takes decades rather than months as in US or China. So hydro-electricity potential is under utilized. And with people like MMS, who pay ISRO, DEA, DRDO scientists below what mediocre IT company pays to a fresher, Thorium has been a pipe dream till now. So we have a energy crisis. My point is --- energy crisis is result of defunct PMs and MPs to begin with. And now people expect that same PM/MPs will show integrity in creating a nuclear deal.

-------

The 123 deal severely compromises our ability to become a nuclear super-power. And if we dont become a nuclear super power, we will become an Iraq. The ABV (yes, same ABV who signed Enron deal) said we have "credible deterrence" and MMS cites the same. This is utter cr1p. First we do NOT have credible deterrence against US or even UK or even China. We have "credible deterrence" against Pak, but that because Pak doesn't have any credible nuke capability to begib with.

Next, Minimum deterrence is a moving target. Today we have it, tomorrow under new circumstances our supply of 150 warheads (as per rumors) may be a chickenfeed. Hence we have to do more tests to improve quality.

And ABV spoke one more lie --- we have ability to conduct test via software simulation. US and USSR have done 700-1000 tests before they achieved this simulation ability. Our IT implementations have been so defunct till date that most Tahsils (some over 70% by latest count) do NOT have computerized land records. And we have achieved software simulation for nuclear explosion? This is some sick joke.

And till now, we have NOT tested a bomb on a missile. US and USSR have actually mounted mini nukes on rockets, and taken them miles above the earth and exploded nuke there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing

Atmospheric testing designates explosions which take place in or above the atmosphere. Generally these have occurred as devices detonated on towers, balloons, barges, islands, or dropped from airplanes. A limited number of high-altitude nuclear explosions also conducted, generally fired from rockets. ... .


And how many tests various countries have done? Above link says :


[Quote]
*United States: 1,054 tests by official count (331 atmospheric tests)

*Soviet Union: 715 tests

* France France: 210 tests by official count (50 atmospheric)

* United Kingdom : 45 tests (21 in Australian territory, including 9 in mainland South Australia

* China : 45 tests (23 atmospheric)

* India: 5 or 6 underground tests, at Pokhran.

* Pakistan : between 3 and 6 tests

* North Korea: 1 test at Hwadae-ri.


---

We have NOT done even ONE atmospheric test.

So whole argument that we have "tested enough" is an utter nonsense cr1p coming of US poodles like MMS and ABV

---

The 123 agreement restricts from further testing nukes. So this agreement doesnt give us even 5% of energy we need, and jeopardizes our safety.

PM signs such defunct deals as they need US support to continue (a big part of media like ToI, IE etc are under MNCs, and can overthrow this supportless govt thru smear campaign alone). And because we commons cant replace PM.

.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7603
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 18 Aug 2007 23:53

We have NOT done even ONE atmospheric test.


Atmospheric testing would violate the 1963 LTBT which India has signed. It would also contaminate the environment.

Indian RVs have been tested with their Pu primary pits replaced with a non-fissile material. Recovery of RV allows verification that the detonation was successful.

Our IT implementations have been so defunct till date that most Tahsils (some over 70% by latest count) do NOT have computerized land records. And we have achieved software simulation for nuclear explosion? This is some sick joke.


No it is the result of a babu-pandu-neta-judge nexus.
Seriously ..what does IT in land records have to do with computer simulation by the DAE?
DAE has had privileged access to resources, priority over other departments. They have had supercomputers for decades.
Last edited by Gerard on 19 Aug 2007 00:00, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Postby Rahul Mehta » 18 Aug 2007 23:53

.

shiv wrote: Do we have the balls?


Yes. We do.

----

shiv wrote:Why have nuclear bombs?


US would have made an Iraq-2007 out of Russia if Russia did not have nukes.

And Iraq would not have become Iraq-2007 if Iraq had nukes and ICBM to kill sat 5cr Americans.

And we too would become Iraq-2007 unless we dont harvest at least as many nukes as US has.

I hope that answers your question "why have nuclear bombs".

.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 19 Aug 2007 00:06

And we too would become Iraq-2007 unless we dont harvest at least as many nukes as US has.


Parity in deterrence has nothing to do with numbers of deliverable weapons.

It has to do the number of weapons that will reach their target, and the pain threshold of the nation in question. The pain threshold for democracies with open media is probably much lower than for dictatorships where the media is controlled.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7603
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 00:09

And we too would become Iraq-2007 unless we dont harvest at least as many nukes as US has.


North Korea may have 3-4 bombs.

Why doesn't the US just invade them? Why no Iraq-2007 on the Korean peninsula?

The US has 9960 intact warheads, with 5735 operational.
China probably has less than 500.
Why no US invasion? No Middle Kingdom-2008?

The US spent trillions on an arsenal meant for counterforce attacks but is deterred by a handful of Korean bombs and conventional artillery.
Check what the US plutonium stockpile is... then the Chinese one.
See what the term superpower really means... why China doesn't even try to match the US.

US and USSR have done 700-1000 tests before they achieved this simulation ability.


And as computing power advanced they did fewer and fewer tests.
No need for trial and error when simulation allowed testing of designs.
Last edited by Gerard on 19 Aug 2007 00:15, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Postby Rahul Mehta » 19 Aug 2007 00:09

Rahul Mehta: We have NOT done even ONE atmospheric test.

Gerard: Atmospheric testing would violate the 1963 LTBT which India has signed. .


Are those who signed LTBT alive? Then we should do, what ex-DefMin says what China will do, with those who signed LTBT. And then we should scrap this treaty. And if PM refuses to scrap this treaty, then we should follow ex-DefMin's advice again.

It would also contaminate the environment


Till now there have been about 400-500 atmospheric tests. That did NOT pollute environment. US actually nukes Japan twice. That did NOT pollute environment. And our 100-200 atmospheric tests would pollute environment. Can you explain me why is that so? Does it depend on the country that explodes the bomb? Do US and Soviet nukes had some pollution control devices? We can use the same.

Indian RVs have been tested with their Pu primary pits replaced with a non-fissile material. Recovery of RV allows verification that the detonation was successful.


How can we say our missiles are capable of delivering the bomb to destination, which may some US, UK, Chinese, Saud or Paki city? We cant be sure unless we test missile and bomb both together.

These countries blew away billions in testing, and was NOT for some fireworks. The enormous amount of testing shows that mastery over nukes is no joke, and requires extensive tests.

.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7603
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 00:26

Till now there have been about 400-500 atmospheric tests. That did NOT pollute environment.


You are aware that background radiation levels are still elevated because of atmospheric testing?
That populations living downwind of the test sites have suffered from cancer and birth defects?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7603
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 00:33

We cant be sure unless we test missile and bomb both together.


Presumably the US can't be sure either... since their W76, W87 and W88 warheads were never tested with a fissile pit in flight?

Or do you think the US uses 1962 technology in their warheads?

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 19 Aug 2007 00:37

R Mehta, Atmospheric tests are not needed IMHO. The way gerard says, things can be well verified.

Govt to set up expansion unit of BARC at Visakhapatnam

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Aug 2007 00:44

We cant be sure unless we test missile and bomb both together.


Correction. Shouldn't that be
We cant be sure unless we test missile, bomb and target buildings/Pakis/Rizalds all together.
??

I mean, HOW can v b sure that Tall Fair Tight-musharrafed faujis are in any way bothered by new clear detergents? Most of them have been 400% immune to detergents all their lives.

If you watch Andromeda Strain, they realized seconds b4 they detonated a megaton thermonuke in their own basement, that the Andromeda Strain LOVED thermonuclear explosions, and would have taken over the whole word if the Self-Destruct explosion had gone ahead. Close shave, what-what?

Also, just because a bum works in LaHore doesn't mean that it will work in Karachi. Does the shiv mantra

Jo Lahore mein gaandu woh Karachi mein bhi gaandu
work in this case? HOW do we know?

Element of doubt, always the element of doubt.
:?: :?:

So AT LAST we have the real KILLER OBJECTION to the 123 deal
DOES IT SPECIFICALLY PERMIT INDIA'S SOVEREIGN SOAP (I mean RIGHT) to NUKE LAHORE, KARACHI, BEIJING AND ISLAMABAD??
I hope the traitor MMS has not sold out the nation and lied to all of us that we still have this right, when he DID NOT write it into the 123??? :evil:
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 19 Aug 2007 00:47, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7603
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 00:44

Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger[quote] The area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium — “enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1000 yearsâ€

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 19 Aug 2007 01:01

Left's wishlist :

* No signing of any agreement at the IAEA meet which begins soon and further agreements on safeguards.
* Agreement only to be signed after 123 agreement is concluded(December).
* India should negotiate and address its concerns at the NSG.


8)

Now are the steps and the order of the agreement that important for the US to ditch the deal now? .. Thats for the US to make the call or play the ball..
Last edited by Tilak on 19 Aug 2007 01:25, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby ldev » 19 Aug 2007 01:05

sraj,

The link below gives an idea as to why the agreement with China was not implemented until the 2003-2004 time frame inspite of earlier ratification. It also answers your question as to why there was a once only certification for China vis a vis periodic monitoring for India i.e. China is a recognized P-5 power, India is not and US law recognizes the difference.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/32570.htm

China in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)

John S. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation
Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee
Washington, DC
May 18, 2004

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7603
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 01:13

No abrupt end to nuke deal, US assures India
With the remarks of the US State Department spokesman creating an uproar in India, Washington has clarified to New Delhi that its position remains that the civil nuclear cooperation will not be suspended automatically even if an atomic test was conducted.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 19 Aug 2007 01:24

[quote="Gerard"]Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger[quote] The area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium — “enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1000 yearsâ€

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 19 Aug 2007 01:32

Acharya wrote:Can some pro-deal poster explains all the 12 points pointed out by BC.
No simplistic answers please.

1. Strawman. This is a standard contractual clause and the US has it in any contract with any nation. The US China agreement states "(each) party shall have the rights to cease further cooperation under this agreement." You cannot write a legal contract wihtout such clauses. What does BC expect the 123 to say - "US will prostrate before India and do 9 pradakshanams before contract is void?"

2. Another strawman. US laws will hold insofar as the US activities are concerned. If after our first purchase from the US, the laws are deemed too onerous, India can and likely will buy from Russia or France whose conditions are more lenient.

3. Right of Return - Discussed here already. The US has not excercised the right 34 years after Pokhran-1. Do you think they will send the Marines in case India tests again?

4,5. Same as point 1

6. If the US excercises the terminate clause, then will George Bush's uncle come and stop India from kicking out IAEA inspectors? Does the IAEA have an army of its own?

7. US grant of reprocessing right in principle is a huge win for India because the US has not granted this to China.

8. If BC sees "consultations" on fuel supply as a face saver than that is his view. They are in the agreement for a reason and that reason is that it provides a built-in mechanism for fuel continuation.

9. Again, BC's opinion. Given how Russia gave us fuel for "efficient operation" of Tarapur, I trust our scientists and diplomats more than BC.

10. US has not given reprocessing and enrichment equipment to ANY nation. Does BC want to cancel a deal like this in order to get a theoretical right to get technology that DAE says India is already good at?

11. End-use - US has it with China. To quote "parties will use diplomatic channels to establish mutually acceptable arrangements for exchanges of information and visits to material, facilities and components subject to this agreement. " Why do we carp about it. Their technology, their right to check. If we don't like it, buy it from someone else.

12. US can do a Tarapur on any nation. If you use this as an example for not doing this deal then you should oppose EVERY Indo-US deal from toilet paper to textiles because the US can break it at will. Strong nations have the self confidence to deal with such things. That's all I'll say.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Aug 2007 01:37

But without the 123 agreement, this will suffice for India's "needs" for imported fuel for the next 1,750,000,000,000,000 years (not a milligram can be imported without it being intercepted by the US, UK etc.). So I say we scrap the 123.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7082
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 19 Aug 2007 01:41

We cant be sure unless we test missile and bomb both together


:) :) There was a friend of mine who asked the car dealer what is the gaurantee/proof that the air bags will work while buying the Honda accord. The dealer told him to bang the car to a tree after the purchase and return the car if it did not work.

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

Postby SaiK » 19 Aug 2007 02:03

solid move indeed.. both Niger and India would be sanctioned under any events that should trigger an automatic cessation of the agreement, and furthering a block of fuel supplies..

but, how much of GoI control does it have on the private industry that is registered with Niger govt. How much of American controls can be put.. and what other super power aspects that can be applied needs to be studied.

may be, GoI needs to enter into a contract with the private that binds them totally with a big money at stake.. and make sure, things are not taken for a ride at strategic times.

btw, we stand, and must stand by the voluntary moratorium till 100% of our scientific community expresses dissatisfaction with our weapons program.

.. I think this 123 agreement still is valid and needed till we have more inputs about this private venture, and how it may apply. Niger govt, will be sent with 100s of tomahawk missiles by UNkill that have done Iraq to death for a different form of energy - oil.

imho, there is only little difference between oil and nukes, from American strategies, oil will kill the countries, nukes will destroy them if going against american interests.

now, why sign this deal.. cause we still don't want to walk away and leave Niger to be exposed to tomahawk missiles.. as a friendly gesture.. we need the 123 deal.. just for these strategic issues.

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

Postby bala » 19 Aug 2007 02:33

The BJP article by Arun Shourie is devoid of any deep analysis on 123 and is resorting to what if scenarios and Hyde Act.

If you read the China agreement :

The parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this Agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may NOT invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’


Now look at 123

ARTICLE 16 - ENTRY INTO FORCE AND DURATION

4. This Agreement shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law.


India can cite the so-called International Law that China quotes in its agreement, i.e. the principle of international law that provides that a party may NOT invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. If we want to legalistic and correct this is a valid argument and any US President will be hard pressed to argue against the validity legally speaking.

Another thing that needs reiteration numerous times : 123 talks about only civilian nuclear, peaceful purposes not strategic programs. If fact it excludes both US and Indian strategic programs from the 123 agreement.

It is very important that in the final analysis we all remember this dictum

India and US must conclude the 123 deal otherwise China wins


So boo to the CPI&M and China at any cost.

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1212
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Postby Kati » 19 Aug 2007 03:02

8) Problem is Alliance with America.......

The Telegraph, Aug 19, 2007

Problem is alliance with America, nuclear or not
PRAKASH KARAT

The Indo-US bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation is in the eye of a political storm. The UPA government’s announcement of the conclusion of the agreement has led to a political crisis.

It may be difficult for ordinary people to grasp the implications of the nuclear agreement with all its technical aspects and intricacies. The supply of nuclear fuel, the fuel cycle, the enrichment and reprocessing technologies and the safeguards agreement are all not within the knowledge of lay people. Without going into the complex issues concerning nuclear cooperation, one way to understand and assess the agreement is to ask: does this agreement advance India’s interests, does it protect our capacity for an independent foreign policy and sovereignty? Is this an agreement only on nuclear cooperation or is it part of a wider agreement?


Firstly, the nuclear cooperation deal is only one part of the wide-ranging alliance that the UPA government has forged with the United States. This was spelt out by the Indian Prime Minister and the American President in the joint statement in July 2005 in Washington. This agreement covers political, economic, military and nuclear cooperation. This alliance entails not just nuclear cooperation but talks of the two countries promoting global democracy, revamping the Indian economy to facilitate large-scale investment by the United States and a strategic military collaboration.

Prior to the joint statement of July 2005, the UPA government signed a 10-year Defence Framework Agreement with the United States. It is evident that without the defence agreement, the Americans would not have agreed to the nuclear cooperation. This is part of a quid pro quo.

Even before the nuclear cooperation agreement was finalised, the government began to tune its foreign policy to the strategic alliance with the United States. The United States held India’s attitude to Iran to be a test. India responded by voting against Iran not once, but twice, in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The first serious conflict with the Left arose when the UPA government did a volte-face on the Iran nuclear issue. The government voted along with the US and the western countries in September 2005 and was not even prepared to go along with the position adopted by the bloc of Non-Aligned Movement countries.

The Left parties have been watching with disquiet the way the UPA government has gone about forging close strategic and military ties with the United States. The Left came out in strong opposition to the Defence Framework Agreement. As per the agreement, India is taking steps to interlock our armed forces with that of the United States in the name of “inter-operabilityâ€

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 19 Aug 2007 03:23

Karat feels compelled to explain the CPM's stance to the Indian public. This shows the game is underway to win audience mind share. Long live Indian democracy.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 19 Aug 2007 03:58

ramana wrote:Karat feels compelled to explain the CPM's stance to the Indian public. This shows the game is underway to win audience mind share. Long live Indian democracy.


If Left successfully pulls the rug under MMS's feet, it will be the single biggest achievement of Indian democracy (at least in my memory). This will also set a very good precedent that never again such a predicament will occur. It has been my position that it was important that this government falls on this issue to prevent such adventure in future.

I think Left's approach is good in that they want to stop the whole thing from proceeding. This will make the deal immaterial. I think this flaw was not recognized by UPA prior to the deal and so hush..hush go ahead by the chefs in the CCS.

Also, if MMS is going down, there will be several who will give him company including our own Robert Hanssen. I wish this happens for greater good of India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23743
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 19 Aug 2007 04:11

Kati wrote:8) Problem is Alliance with America.......

The Telegraph, Aug 19, 2007

Problem is alliance with America, nuclear or not
PRAKASH KARAT


It is very obvious that PRC is the puppeteer. Commies never had India in their minds, it was always either FSU or PRC.

ShyamSP
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2365
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby ShyamSP » 19 Aug 2007 04:49

Satya_anveshi wrote:If Left successfully pulls the rug under MMS's feet, it will be the single biggest achievement of Indian democracy (at least in my memory). This will also set a very good precedent that never again such a predicament will occur. It has been my position that it was important that this government falls on this issue to prevent such adventure in future.

I think Left's approach is good in that they want to stop the whole thing from proceeding. This will make the deal immaterial. I think this flaw was not recognized by UPA prior to the deal and so hush..hush go ahead by the chefs in the CCS.

Also, if MMS is going down, there will be several who will give him company including our own Robert Hanssen. I wish this happens for greater good of India.

The deal in my opinion goes regardless of Commies, Congress, UNPA, and BJP political moves. If not today, BJP will come to power and push the similar if not the same deal. Only thing is that India needs to tighten laws that this deal doesn't affect the any future tests. In the text written I don't see India or US need to change much. US too loses much if the deal fails as it is buying India for so cheap just by delivering it from the shackles the West imposed.

I think UNPA and Commies are evaluating the case if they push the UPA fall, whether they can come to power or not. This is good time for UNPA and Commies to push for the fall as they think they can usurp seats from both Congress and at the same time keep BJP at bay.


AniB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 00:34
Location: Rockies

Postby AniB » 19 Aug 2007 05:41

N.Rao good synopsis of last few days.

The Shourie, Karnad arguments are essentially Hyde bound. But Hyde Act isn’t worth anything!

US can change its internal laws anytime (it has; eg. Snail Darter, 123 at Tarapore 1977). The point is to go to all the right parties (COTUS, IEAE, etc) and then go home, panties unsoiled, have chai-biscoot. India is debuting as P6 and this part is already [u]done[/u].

Maybe we can get MACHINERY. To [b]make [/b]machinery. Pumps, seals, CNC.

By the way, IMHO unconvinced that we need reprocessing tech. If BARC/ DAE is publishing 20% of its fractionation/electrolysis pyroprocessing separation streams then we have to interpolate the rest. These are painfully obtained (in smart man-hours) trends in fractional separation data which cannot be quite yet calculated ab- initio. But we might need these specialty hydrocarbon and diamide solvents for a while. (Notice the entire 150 t of Na was obtained from Germany/France).

Karat’s article should probably embarrass the man in 10 years.
Selling Indian interests to a brutally non-Indian psyche, that isn’t even practiced in the Soviet Union, or PRC. What is in practiced in rural China would make Karat greyer.

Many soft-erudite, liberal arts types are having piskological connipptions with Mother India entering the Worlds market. Scared to have Business-relations with a slightly untrustworthy Chacha-ji. Bring on all the Gujju aphorisms.

[b][/b]

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

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2007 05:43

AniB, That is JUST from Aug 18, 2007. One day.

_____________________________________________________________

Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger

[quote]
The area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium — “enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1,000 yearsâ€
Last edited by NRao on 19 Aug 2007 05:55, edited 1 time in total.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 19 Aug 2007 05:46

SSridhar wrote:
Kati wrote:8) Problem is Alliance with America.......

The Telegraph, Aug 19, 2007

Problem is alliance with America, nuclear or not
PRAKASH KARAT


It is very obvious that PRC is the puppeteer. Commies never had India in their minds, it was always either FSU or PRC.


Indian democracy at work. They got elected, so are very rightly voicing their opinion. But if their best argument is institutionalized dhimmitude towards the arabs and hatred of the US, then my opinion is based on institutionalized hartred of all anti-nationals. If the left on chinese payrol hate this deal, then India would be well served to push it through.

Stepping back a bit, this wholesale ruckus going on now about the 123 deal is very good. I hope and actually think this will lead to an Indian version of Hyde. That has to be the kavacha. Not dis-engaging. Thats all that is needed. Testing is not and cannot be part of the verbiage at any point in this deal. Deal with it seperately.

Just my 2c. And my 3rd cent would be - >80% of the what the deal entails does not include matters nuclear. Its about a new world order to be shaped and defined. So going on about power generation and GE reactors etc etc... aint going to help much.

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

Postby sivab » 19 Aug 2007 05:47

[quote="Gerard"]Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger[quote] The area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium — “enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1000 yearsâ€

AniB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 00:34
Location: Rockies

Postby AniB » 19 Aug 2007 05:51

About atmospheric testing. Old Chanakyan saying: “Mijjile that is not controlled inside pants, is going to scram pituitary gland and spoil thinkingâ€

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 19 Aug 2007 05:52

ShyamSP wrote:I think UNPA and Commies are evaluating the case if they push the UPA fall, whether they can come to power or not. This is good time for UNPA and Commies to push for the fall as they think they can usurp seats from both Congress and at the same time keep BJP at bay.

It is all about jockeying for when is the opportune time to pull the rug under the MMS govt. If it wasnt the nuclear deal, it was going to be something else that was just waiting around the corner. The indications are that the CPM is not willing to pull it out right now, but are daring the govt to go ahead.

I think the govt should accept the challenge and call for an election. I think if called within the next 6 to 8 months, the "UNPA" or more specifically, the SP, and AIADMK will get a serious drubbing. The Left cannot repeat its all time best performance that it had in Kerala as in last election. Singur and Nandigram will take a toll on the comrades in Bengal. The BJP is fragmented and at best can only hold on to their current numbers . Congress might see losses in Andhra to the TDP. But in Karnataka, I think Congress will gain at the expense of JDS(I think the people have no more appetite for the Deve Gowda clan's antics) which cut into the Congress vote last election. Net result.. Congress gets back with atleast equal strength.. SP wiped out.. Comrades cut down to normal size (Congress SHOULD gain in Kerala), Amma might make marginal gains..

All Kangress needs to do is stictch up an alliance with BSP /Behenji in UP on something along the lines of the former AIADMK/Cong alliance in TN (2/3 of MLA tix to AIADMK, 2/3 or MP tix to Congress).Me thinks, the Kangress can still "deliver" upper cast votes in UP if only it is seen as a winning alternative and not as a perennial loser. With that , the other swing groups like the Muslims and others will start coming in.

All in all, MMS and Sonia should call the Comrade's bluff and call for an election. That alone will liberate you from the Commie black mail and veto on foreign policy, economic reform and any other important agenda that needs to be done to take the country forward and dismantle the remnants of the license permit raj of yesteryears that still linger around in many many sectors of the economy.

Also, notice why I keep maintaining why PV Narasimha Rao is the best prime minister India had ever had. Look at what he accomplished with far lesser support and consensus than what MMS and Sonia have managed to do despite a strong 15 year positive record from reforms and without the need to prove a business case of reforms working anymore.

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

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2007 05:52

The Shourie, Karnad arguments are essentially Hyde bound. But Hyde Act isn’t worth anything!


true.

However, where 123 fails, the US prez, for what it is worth, has to lean on the Hyde Act.

Now, IF at that point in time India has a very strong leader, or the economy is so strong that internationals can lean of the US prez, well and dandy.

So, as much as the 123 bring economic and technical relief, it still does leave some to future gens to fill in the gaps.

Point #2. The US still controls IAEA and even NSG to some extent. SO, let us see what happens there. IF there is leniency in both locales, then I would say that the US is heading in the right direction.

AniB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 00:34
Location: Rockies

Postby AniB » 19 Aug 2007 06:02

[quote]So, as much as the 123 bring economic and technical relief, it still does leave some to future gens to fill in the gaps.

Point #2. The US still controls IAEA and even NSG to some extent. SO, let us see what happens there. IF there is leniency in both locales, then I would say that the US is heading in the right direction.[/quote]

We already did some polite noises with El- Baradi last year. Things are moving fast this evening, oh dear! (Sip, export D2O).

This lil’ 60 year old debutante IS at the ball.

Oz and Niger and who knows who (Kazagh) want to dance. Naughty Chacha-ji!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2007 06:03

[quote="NRao"]AniB, That is JUST from Aug 18, 2007. One day.

_____________________________________________________________

Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger

[quote]
The area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium — “enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1,000 yearsâ€
Last edited by shiv on 19 Aug 2007 06:08, edited 1 time in total.

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Postby Suppiah » 19 Aug 2007 06:07

[quote="sivab"][quote="Gerard"]Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger[quote] The area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium — “enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1000 yearsâ€

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

Postby sivab » 19 Aug 2007 06:08

shiv: That article is waste of bandwidth. 30,000 tonnes of Uranium is probably good for 80MW for 1000 years. How does such non-sense gets published without review?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests