India Nuclear News and Discussion - August 20, 2007

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

India Nuclear News and Discussion - August 20, 2007

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 13:42

Old thread will go to nuke archive.

Link 2 lat page
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=320

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 20 Aug 2007 13:48

*deleted by admin*

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 14:05

Some of the articles posted in the old thread have the silliest and most uninformed views and seem to indicate talking before thinking, and certainly talking before reading the goddam agreements.

The Hyde act has been around for months now and everyone has had enough time to read it. It was clearly indicated that the US would stick to the Laxman rekha of the Hyde act. The Indian Laxman rekha was less clear.

After the deal it appears that Indians are suddenly waking up and saying "Our Laxman rekha is No deal at all"

Shourie is now asking what is the India Laxman rekha is by saying "What act ill India quote to the US?"

But surely the ONLY India Laxman rekhas were "leave our weapons program untouched", "leave our 3 stage program untouched" and "Do not restrict our freedom to test"

The first two are fine and people are now complaining that the freedom to test has gone. That is a misunderstanding of the deal by a bunch of people who want to act like mamma's boys and want mamma to give them written permission to test as part of Hyde act, 123 agreement, US constitution etc.
That will not come.

India is welcome to test, and if it tests it will face consequences that are written down in any future agreements signed regarding nuke supply. Even for those agreements the 123 deal leaves the door open to ensure that fuel supplies last for the lifetime of a reactor and "right of return" does not mean sudden shut down of reactor. Just read that goddam 123 act.

It is up to us squabbling Indians to come up with watertight deals as and when we sign them. If we don't trust India to do that then the right thing to do is moan and cry that all is lost. That is exactly what is happening.

The moaners are crying and asking for someone else to resign - as if that will change anything. What a stupid drama - both in parliament and in the media. And if I may add - on here.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 20 Aug 2007 14:06

The problem with the mild mannered PM is that he has never displayed the kind of balls in defending Indian interests as he has when defending Amreican interests in India.

-------------

Just because you may not be as educated or intellectual as him, you need not turn his credentials into a mockery.

Depends on what you call intellectual. If all he can intellectualise is how Britain civilized us :roll: , then he is not an intellectual, he is a Gunga Din.

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 14:09

saty - you were unbanned recently, but I think you are misusing your ability to post on here.

If I see any further justification of your unfunny joke and more self praise, you are out again. I am not convinced that your return to the forum is a positive development.

Other debates and other times shall be in other places.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 20 Aug 2007 14:21

shiv wrote:saty - you were unbanned recently, but I think you are misusing your ability to post on here.

If I see any further justification of your unfunny joke and more self praise, you are out again. I am not convinced that your return to the forum is a positive development.

Other debates and other times shall be in other places.


No Sir; I do not want to be banned; so I shall very meekly accept all manners of special sanctions on my posts.

After all I don't have a choice do I :cry:

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 14:27

Indian communist party bats for the Chinese as usual, but the BJP helps.
Link
Though taken aback by the finalisation of the 123 Agreement, China still hopes that opposition within India will ultimately prevent it from being operationalised. But in the event of it coming through, China is making active preparations for a counter-deal with Pakistan, one which the latter has long been seeking.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 20 Aug 2007 14:31

shiv wrote:
Shourie is now asking what is the India Laxman rekha is by saying "What act ill India quote to the US?"



That is either deliberate misrepresentation of what Shourie wrote; or you have misunderstood his writings.

1) Shourie has not woken up now; he has been publishing very incisive writings on the topic since day one. No BRFite has disagreed with the points he raised against Hyde. In fact that was some of the pressure that forced GoI (as it seems from public info) to salvage the language of 123.

2) He is raising the point that 123 == MMS speech in parliament? He quotes details. He says J18 != 123

3) He says PM is not coming clean on these points; does not take all sections into account.

4) He and BJP has never said scrap this deal; he has only said revisit it use a JPC.

This is a democracy. Peoples voices must be heard. Sometimes it is a din. However given your attitude of taking a mocking position towards people who disagree with you it clearly seems that you are not comfortable with the chaos that the democracy sometimes entails.

Oh well; let us know what you want us to say then. So we can all sing a chorus.

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 14:39

saty wrote:This is a democracy. Peoples voices must be heard. Sometimes it is a din. However given your attitude of taking a mocking position towards people who disagree with you it clearly seems that you are not comfortable with the chaos that the democracy sometimes entails.

Oh well; let us know what you want us to say then. So we can all sing a chorus.


saty - I have been on this forum too long to fall for this line. As far as you are concerned - I think this forum wil be a lot better with people who tend not to lose their cool soon.

You are out again.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 20 Aug 2007 14:39

shiv wrote:Indian communist party bats for the Chinese as usual, but the BJP helps.


Not really; BJP has been saying the same thing since day 1. If PM wants he can reach out to the BJP and take them into confidence. It seems that the PM is still upset at the fact BJP took a very dim view of his becoming PM and harbors malice on that count.

Well if the BJP feels that the deal has wordings too vague to be trusted with MMS. I don't blame them. I feel the same.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 14:58

quote]
Because of the Chinese opposition, I am now fully convinced that this is a good deal. And now I fully support it. :)

My earlier doubts on the deal were because of the too-clever-by-half language used in the text of the deal. I thought goras as usual were talking with their forked tongues.

Whatever doubts I had, are now removed because of the sheer hatred the chinks have displayed. And I do not feel guilty about using a racist term to describe racists.

-------------
The left as usual is up to its anti national games.[/quote]

Do we expect any sane Chinese Govt. to welcome US, India allying together in Asia against China and doing ALL possible un precedented Military excercises ??

See, this is what perhaps, a Chinese reply to the deal !

[b]Russia, China hold joint military exercise


China seems to align with Russia now !?

Now again they are hardening their stand against India on all issues from NSG clearance, Arunachal, Military exercise with Russia !


Is this strategically Good for India, knowing well that Chinese was never a friend of India ?? Just to think !

BTW, there is a AIR show in Russia involving [b]Sukoi 35



http://www.russiatoday.ru/scitech/news/12694

[/url]

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 15:07

self deleted.
Last edited by Prabu on 20 Aug 2007 15:15, edited 1 time in total.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 15:09

saty wrote:
shiv wrote:Indian communist party bats for the Chinese as usual, but the BJP helps.


Not really; BJP has been saying the same thing since day 1. If PM wants he can reach out to the BJP and take them into confidence. It seems that the PM is still upset at the fact BJP took a very dim view of his becoming PM and harbors malice on that count.

Well if the BJP feels that the deal has wordings too vague to be trusted with MMS. I don't blame them. I feel the same.


I do feel the same !!
(and a Lot of Brfites, scientists and many news papers in India ! :D

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Abhishek

Postby abhischekcc » 20 Aug 2007 15:21

But surely the ONLY India Laxman rekhas were "leave our weapons program untouched", "leave our 3 stage program untouched" and "Do not restrict our freedom to test"


There are two more non negotiable areas, IMO:

1. The right to reprocess (for Indian and foreign fuel)

2. The right to carry on nuclear R&D activities without undue interference (that is - no IP stealing).

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 15:25

India faces "unbearable" oil bill, nuclear a must - PM
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070820/137/6jnj9.html


NDA, UNPA want parliamentary panel to assess N-deal
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070820/43/6jnlz.html

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 15:26

Only a deal with ambiguous wordings can allow for further deals that take into account various interests.

If the US were to specify the wordings it would say "Hyde act" and if India was to specify the wordings it would say "We want nuke material. We do not want controls on our strategic programs. We will test when we like"

All deals have to be kept within the ambiguous arena.
The wording of the 123 allows for a great deal of leeway before the Hyde act kicks. India can never again carry out a surprise test like 1974 or 1998 without getting Mr Hyde in the game. But there is talk of certain circumstances (changed security environment) in which India could test and still not have the Hyde act come into force. See para 2 of 123 quoted below. See also the conditions in para 5 about "return" of items.

On the question of testing, the analysis of the Hyde act says:

As further clarified in the section-by-section analysis included
in this report, the conferees believe that there should be no ambi-
guity regarding the legal and policy consequences of any future In-
dian test of a nuclear explosive device. In that event, the President
must terminate all export and reexport of U.S.-origin nuclear mate-
rials, nuclear equipment, and sensitive nuclear technology to India.
The conferees expect the President to make full and immediate use
of U.S. rights to demand the return of all nuclear-related items,
materials, and sensitive nuclear technology that have been ex-
ported or reexported to India if India were to test or detonate, or
otherwise cause the test or detonation of, a nuclear explosive device
for any reason, including such instances in which India describes
its actions as being ‘‘for peaceful purposes.’’ This legal condition is
further strengthened in the Conference agreement beyond section
129 of the AEA by a provision that the waiver authority in this leg-
islation terminates with any Indian test. The conferees believe that
termination would include the suspension and revocation of any
current or pending export or reexport licenses, and that the return
of U.S.-origin items and materials should extend to any special nu-
clear material produced by India through the use of any nuclear
materials, equipment, or sensitive nuclear technology exported or
reexported to India by the United States.
The prohibition concerning a recipient country not engaging in
activities involving source or special nuclear material under Section
129 are permanently waived for India, as India will undoubtedly
continue to produce fissile material, until such time after it is able
to fulfill its commitment in the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement to
work with the United States toward conclusion of a future Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty.


But the 123 agreement does not carry the word "test" but says this about termination of this agreement

ARTICLE 14 – TERMINATION AND CESSATION OF COOPERATION
1. Either Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement prior to its expiration
on one year’s written notice to the other Party. A Party giving notice of termination shall
provide the reasons for seeking such termination. The Agreement shall terminate one
year from the date of the written notice, unless the notice has been withdrawn by the
providing Party in writing prior to the date of termination.
2. Before this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, the
Parties shall consider the relevant circumstances and promptly hold consultations, as
provided in Article 13, to address the reasons cited by the Party seeking termination. The
Party seeking termination has the right to cease further cooperation under this Agreement
if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has not been
possible or cannot be achieved through consultations. The Parties agree to consider
carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation.
They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to
termination or cessation resulted from a Party’s serious concern about a changed security
environment or as a response to similar actions by other States which could impact
national security.

3. If a Party seeking termination cites a violation of this Agreement as the reason for
notice for seeking termination, the Parties shall consider whether the action was caused
inadvertently or otherwise and whether the violation could be considered as material. No
violation may be considered as being material unless corresponding to the definition of
material violation or breach in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. If a Party
seeking termination cites a violation of an IAEA safeguards agreement as the reason for
notice for seeking termination, a crucial factor will be whether the IAEA Board of
Governors has made a finding of non-compliance.
4. Following the cessation of cooperation under this Agreement, either Party shall
have the right to require the return by the other Party of any nuclear material, equipment,
non-nuclear material or components transferred under this Agreement and any special
fissionable material produced through their use. A notice by a Party that is invoking the
right of return shall be delivered to the other Party on or before the date of termination of
this Agreement. The notice shall contain a statement of the items subject to this
Agreement as to which the Party is requesting return. Except as provided in provisions of
Article 16.3, all other legal obligations pertaining to this Agreement shall cease to apply
with respect to the nuclear items remaining on the territory of the Party concerned upon
termination of this Agreement.

5. The two Parties recognize that exercising the right of return would have profound
implications for their relations. If either Party seeks to exercise its right pursuant to
paragraph 4 of this Article, it shall, prior to the removal from the territory or from the
control of the other Party of any nuclear items mentioned in paragraph 4, undertake
consultations with the other Party. Such consultations shall give special consideration to
the importance of uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors of the Party concerned with
respect to the availability of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving
energy security. Both Parties shall take into account the potential negative consequences
of such termination on the on-going contracts and projects initiated under this Agreement
of significance for the respective nuclear programmes of either Party.
6. If either Party exercises its right of return pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article,
it shall, prior to the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party,
compensate promptly that Party for the fair market value thereof and for the costs
incurred as a consequence of such removal. If the return of nuclear items is required, the
Parties shall agree on methods and arrangements for the return of the items, the relevant
quantity of the items to be returned, and the amount of compensation that would have to
be paid by the Party exercising the right to the other Party.
7. Prior to return of nuclear items, the Parties shall satisfy themselves that full
safety, radiological and physical protection measures have been ensured in accordance
with their existing national regulations and that the transfers pose no unreasonable risk to
either Party, countries through which the nuclear items may transit and to the global
environment and are in accordance with existing international regulations.

8. The Party seeking the return of nuclear items shall ensure that the timing, methods
and arrangements for return of nuclear items are in accordance with paragraphs 5, 6 and
7. Accordingly, the consultations between the Parties shall address mutual commitments
as contained in Article 5.6. It is not the purpose of the provisions of this Article regarding
cessation of cooperation and right of return to derogate from the rights of the Parties
under Article 5.6.
9. The arrangements and procedures concluded pursuant to Article 6(iii) shall be
subject to suspension by either Party in exceptional circumstances, as defined by the
Parties, after consultations have been held between the Parties aimed at reaching
mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues, while taking into account the effects
of such suspension on other aspects of cooperation under this Agreement.


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

Postby vsudhir » 20 Aug 2007 15:29

It’s Left versus UPA, Cong gets allies on board (IE)

[quote] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 19: In a show of solidarity, all UPA constituents today asked the government to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal even if Left threats meant mid-term elections. {The deal apart, this smackdown the left sorely needed and has been asking for for 3 yrs now}

The government, on its part, informed the UPA that it had no problem in setting up a committee to evaluate implications of the Hyde Act — as suggested by the Left today — but this committee could not hinder the process or roadmap of negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). {Right. When does the deal become 'operational' for India? Not before NSG approval, I hope? The iAEA inspections start as soon as the IAEA talks conclude, I guess?}

The government’s stand was spelt out by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to the UPA constituents. He told them that India was getting a much better agreement than what China had reached with the US despite several years of negotiations. {Let Pranabda handle the marxists. He compares our 123 favorably with China's, forcing the issue for the lefties. See this way the lefties expose their Beijing-bhakti}

Hours earlier, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat had said that the Left’s “prime concernâ€

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 20 Aug 2007 15:34

abcc:

How do u c those 2 LRs breached? To me it appears that right to reprocess is built in, with the new ManMohan Global Pu Recycling Phajility.

As for "right to not have IP stolen" how would you see that written into an agreement?

The United States hereby swears on the head of Dubya that the IAEA and NSG will not steal India's IP"


I don't see that happening, so u must have something in mind for this? The IAEA by definition includes British and Australian "inspectors" and there is no way they won't steal - it's congenital. But they are only to be allowed into the "safeguarded" facilities, which will be as open as Moore Market on a Sunday. You just have to watch for pickpockets.

So as far as I can see, all the LRs have been left unbreached.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 20 Aug 2007 15:38

Russia has been acting up lately. IMO, after reading reports in the media, is that at least some of the posturing is due to rivalry between those leaders who want the President's post after Putin retires.

The moves into Arctic, the posturing by nuke bombers, the hardening of stance on India, etc. are all part the game by these overambitious people to prove who is the most patriotic Russian of all.


IMO, onlee.


------------------
India faces "unbearable" oil bill, nuclear a must - PM
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070820/137/6jnj9.html

It is statements like this that make MMS a suspect. Only 1% (??) of India's electricity is generated by hydrocarbon sources. Unless MMS has dicovered a way to turn electricity into petrol. :P

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

[u][b]Status of Nuclear Energy in Russia[/b][/u]

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 15:43

From INSC data base :
http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=country_status&qvar=name&qval=1

Status of Nuclear Energy in Russia

Number of operable reactors: 30
Total capacity, (MWe net): 19897
Reactor-years of operation to date: 980
Number of reactors under construction: 3
Capacity under construction, (MWe net): 2825
Number of units shutdown or decomissioned: 15




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 20 Aug 2007 15:58

Unless MMS has discovered a way to turn electricity into petrol


Thou speaketh too sooneth, abcc

Those high-temp reactors will produce H2 directly, or the electricity can generate it. Expensive, but beats imported petrol.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

India investing funds in manned space flight program

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 16:35

I was searching in ITAR TASS for any Nuke deal news, just to know what is Russian's official view on the deal. But surprisingly I cant see any news ! But I found, just this :


http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?ewsID=11802596&PageNum=0
ndia investing funds in manned space flight program[/b]
Last edited by Prabu on 20 Aug 2007 18:27, edited 1 time in total.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 20 Aug 2007 17:01

enqyoob wrote:
Unless MMS has discovered a way to turn electricity into petrol


Thou speaketh too sooneth, abcc

Those high-temp reactors will produce H2 directly, or the electricity can generate it. Expensive, but beats imported petrol.


I surrender:

Image

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 20 Aug 2007 17:11

enqyoob wrote:abcc:

How do u c those 2 LRs breached? To me it appears that right to reprocess is built in, with the new ManMohan Global Pu Recycling Phajility.


I am not saying that those two are breached in the agreement. I am just cautioning against rules which may make it easier for the US in future. ("Intrusive Inspections")

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

No deal between Left-UPA, CPM threatens again

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 18:38


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2007 18:45

well... unbearable oil can't be replaced with an unbearable nukes., where the replacement will actually be more unbearable.

and.. coming to think of the risks of testing.. yes we need to think hard if the deal lets us not do the sub-critical testing, etc.. if it doesn't.. then we can't sign the deal.. and balls to those who view that we will be pushed to "outcaste" zone.. what are we now? what were we earlier? this is all american foxie doxie stuff.

of course, we want this deal signed.. but, not at a cost of sub-critical testing, and lab testing.. i can't understand from the agreement texts, that people say (mostly oppositions to the deal), that it prevents lab tests. and.. again i did not understand why MMS went pale after one onslaught of words, that he said India can test, and America said, it will terminate. fine, note that down. He should have come up with his next move in the chess game. India can do sub-critical and lab testing, and fine tune its WMD. What would America have said? no body knows now? Its time for MMS to keep cr@pping on the deal, till America either keeps silent (accept/delay response that is more acceptable) or reject on their govt screw up value.

I also see that not many have read the texts.. even the so called experienced BRites..(might have read it, but not thinking further on then..) else, we would see interesting discussion for pros and cons.

Another important issue to validate the deal, is say something from the PMO that America must respond... we can verify the deal, by discussions against those validations.

2c
Last edited by SaiK on 20 Aug 2007 18:54, edited 1 time in total.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

[size=18]Left parties reject truce offer, warn Govt[/size]

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 18:50


Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Pak to review moratorium on N-tests if India explodes bombs

Postby Prabu » 20 Aug 2007 19:04

Pak to review moratorium on N-tests if India explodes bombs

Like we are saying. If China or Paki's test, we will also test ! Now its the tun of paki's to tell that !
Last edited by Prabu on 20 Aug 2007 19:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 19:08

SaiK wrote:of course, we want this deal signed.. but, not at a cost of sub-critical testing, and lab testing.. i can't understand from the agreement texts, that people say (mostly oppositions to the deal), that it prevents lab tests. and..


It does not say that anywhere in the 123 text.

Suggestion to everyone: Why not read the Hyde act and the 123 agreement?


Hyde

123

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2007 19:26

yes.. it does not say in the texts.. and that is what I am saying as well.. to the members (mostly supporting the opposition) who say that we can not do sub-critical testing.

btw, we need to elaborate on the "national and international law" discussion.
Last edited by SaiK on 20 Aug 2007 19:30, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 19:28

abhischekcc wrote:------------------
India faces "unbearable" oil bill, nuclear a must - PM
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070820/137/6jnj9.html

It is statements like this that make MMS a suspect. Only 1% (??) of India's electricity is generated by hydrocarbon sources. Unless MMS has dicovered a way to turn electricity into petrol. :P


FYI "Hydrocarbon sources"

http://expert-eyes.org/power/capacity.html

Diesel + Gas= 11%
(Coal=68%)


Energy summary of India
http://www.cslforum.org/india.htm

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2007 19:35

thisis how many americans view this deal.

[quote]
Hyde Act hides nothing
Here are some crucial questions regarding the India-US civil nuclear cooperation:

Here are some crucial questions regarding the India-US civil nuclear cooperation:

Can India conduct nuclear tests ever again?
The123 Agreement, read with relevant US laws, will make it difficult to undertake nuclear tests in future without jeopardising the country’s civil nuclear energy sector.

What did Manmohan Singh say in parliament on August 13?
“The Agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary in India’s national interest. A decision to undertake a future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision, one that rests solely with the government of the day...â€
Last edited by SaiK on 20 Aug 2007 20:00, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Abhishek

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 19:40

abhischekcc wrote:
But surely the ONLY India Laxman rekhas were "leave our weapons program untouched", "leave our 3 stage program untouched" and "Do not restrict our freedom to test"


There are two more non negotiable areas, IMO:

1. The right to reprocess (for Indian and foreign fuel)

2. The right to carry on nuclear R&D activities without undue interference (that is - no IP stealing).


As enqyoob said - a fully safeguarded reprocessing facillty for imported fuel is the way forward.

As regards Indian fissile material
From the 123 agreement
The prohibition concerning a recipient country not engaging in
activities involving source or special nuclear material under Section
129 are permanently waived for India, as India will undoubtedly
continue to produce fissile material, until such time after it is able
to fulfill its commitment in the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement to
work with the United States toward conclusion of a future Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty.


Definition of "source or special nuclear material" as per 123 is as follows: (Article 1, subsection L)
[quote](L) “Nuclear materialâ€

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

Postby svinayak » 20 Aug 2007 19:58

Since we are a young democracy, there are lessons to be learnt from this nuclear deal.


Is this reason for this cacophony. Can they not articulate the national interest

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6514
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 20 Aug 2007 20:02

Ramakrishna Upadhya sums up India's predicament brilliantly.

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 20:19

[quote="SaiK"]
Does Hyde disallows lab testing? let see what each parties are saying:-

[color=red]
[b]It is guided by the US national laws, including the India-specific Hyde Act which does not allow India to conduct any nuclear test in future, “not even a lab test.â€

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2007 20:24

[quote="shiv"][quote="SaiK"]
Does Hyde disallows lab testing? let see what each parties are saying:-

[color=red]
[b]It is guided by the US national laws, including the India-specific Hyde Act which does not allow India to conduct any nuclear test in future, “not even a lab test.â€

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

Postby Rye » 20 Aug 2007 20:28

SaiK wrote:
btw, is lab testing considered testing by Hyde?


What do you mean by lab testing? Computer Simulations? Why would that be disallowed? Who is going to enforce such a US law "prohibiting lab testing in India" if the US is not allowed near non-civilian facilities?

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

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 20:31

CRamS wrote:Ramakrishna Upadhya sums up India's predicament brilliantly.


What is the predicament, if I may ask? What are we risking?

I cannot help feeling that Indians who talk of freedom to test are like the man who keeps boasting about his fancy cars but has never been seen in one except a used Merc on one day in 1974 and another day in 1998.

This is a pathetic kind of freedom we are asking for, when we pretend to be holier than the holiest by following all the agreements that we haven't signed - trying to behave like good boys - and manage to show a hard-on only twice in 3 decades.

We need to come to our senses and under stand that India will never ever test overtly unless
a) Pakistan tests
b) China tests
c) The whole goddam world starts testing again.

Even after all this India might want to play "good boy"

Better put our faith in scientists and lab testing done on the sly (as allowed by the 123) and screw the Hyde act which cannot apply to what is done in unsafeguarded labs.

The US is out to get us by hook or crook. Is that so difficult to understand? We need to do a deal with the devil and get what we want. We are not going to test anyway. Development has to be on the sly - as always. That is, after all, what everyone does. We do not need US permission and a US law allowing India to do that.

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

Postby svinayak » 20 Aug 2007 20:33

Manmohan's Govt. will not last full term: Advani

New Delhi, Aug. 20 (PTI): As a crisis looms over the ruling UPA due to the tough stand of the Left over the Indo-US nuclear deal, senior BJP leader L K Advani today claimed that prime minister Manmohan Singh's government would not last its full term.

"This government cannot last till May 2009," he told a farmers' rally here as he flayed the nuclear pact.

In a reference to the Left hardening its stand, the former deputy prime minister said events over the past ten days have changed dramatically with regard to the government's survival.

"Don't try to hush up things. Let this government go as soon as possible," said Advani, who had unsuccessfully sought the Left's support for his party's call for a vote in parliament on the 123 agreement.

He alleged that the country has suffered under the UPA's three-year rule. "The government is in a crisis, which it itself has created," he remarked.

The leader of opposition claimed that many now believe that elections can take place anytime.

Advani recalled that his party had been a proponent of making India a nuclear power since the 1960s.

The BJP leader also spoke about US sanctions against India in the wake of the 1998 nuclear tests. Washington, he said, did not want India to become a nuclear power. "Some of the sanctions it imposed on us are still in place," he said.

Advani insisted that Left leaders have long been engaged in shadow boxing with the Congress-led Government.



Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests