India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

Locked
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Kanson wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: And, you think this deal will solve those levels of poverty. Do you have any idea of the kind of waste in the Indian system, the level of loot and just scraping that from the outside will yield a lot more results towards alleviation of poverty than any such deal.
So, scrapping the deal will alleviate them from poverty ?
No, scrapping or signing the deal will have no impact on these poverty levels. The actions needed to alleviate poverty are manifold, including power generation. There are many options, to be explored in the short to medium term to generate power. None, will come on a platter - the way MMS seeks it through this deal.
Now, go figure, which party has been most responsible for our system of waste? Which party, even today, stands in the way of basic reforms of the state machinery - today? Which party has promoted the mai baap government culture and continues to do so, with NREGS as its symbol of crowning glory as opposed to disinvestment?
So, with the other party in power you achieved everthing ? All are same donkeys from the same pond.[/quote] First, I am not here to defend or tout the actions of the BJP, when in power. That is a red herring, as far as this deal is concerend. Second, you are again, taking a broad stroke to describe ALL parties leaders, in the same brush stroke. A serious fallacy in my view.
If not for this deal, India will continue to be in the dark and the city will never have those shining lights as seen in the west, when a plane lands at the airport, in the middle of the night.
Its like saying without globalization &opening of the market, we could have achieved the present status in the sametime.
Who is afraid of globalization here? If anything, I believe we should be running at 200 miles per hour towards it. Just at acceptable costs.

Please learn to differentiate between the fear based objections of the left and the self interests based arguments of others.

I completely understand, why some members support this deal. The people, I have come to resepect, who support this deal, feel it is a compromise, in order to move ahead on the economic front and away from the world of sanctions and anyways, as time moves on and with our growing strength, we will have more flexible options in the future. I respectfully, disagree.

A compromise of this kind today, will have a lasting impact on the interests of India and its capabilites in the future.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I had earlier asked the members to chart a course assuming the deal will go through and keeping in mind the Hyde(nn) rocks and Indian autonomy as the foremost goal. To me there is a way its just hidden!

Hyde Act reads like Hiranyakashyap's boon from the Devas.

The course must deal with
- test ya no test
- Strategic weapons posture
- Payloads
- Delivery vehicles
- Strike support system
- command and control system
- fuel import
- fuel reprocess
- reactors import ya na
- Hyde clauses
- counters to the Hyde clauses
- Economic growth to support the aspirations of the people.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

uddu wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/vi ... x?id=16640

Dr. Kalam's viewpoint is that to Uranium based safeguards can be there since it is for power generation. He is wary of any sanctions in the future and expects all the reactors in future will be the Thorium based ones. Hopes that within five years we will be self reliant in nuclear energy generation using Thorium fuel.
Kalam supports Manmohan on nuke deal

Asked whether he thought scientists opposing the deal were going too far, Kalam, who demitted office in July, evaded a direct response. "Fortunately, in our democratic set-up, scientists can always approach at the highest level".

The former President also did not feel that the scientists were being ignored. "I didn't feel like that at all.

"Whatever has happened is (for) good," Kalam responded when his view was sought on the deal on which the Prime Minister had consulted him.

Kalam said he had met the Prime Minister before "finishing my assignment (as President)" and highlighted the importance of thorium reactors. "I told the Prime Minister that thorium reactors are very important," he said.

The Prime Minister too agreed that progress must be made on that front, the former President said.

"Parliament has to function"

Expressing his anguish over the repeated turmoil in the Parliament, Kalam said, "Parliament has to function. There may be lot of differences, but Parliament has to function.

"When the Rajya Sabha or the Lok Sabha are in session, people watch, particularly young people. Those in Parliament have to be role models for them," he said.
Thanks Uddu..

I watched the video couldn't find, the above questions being asked ?

Kalams comments on Nuclear deal start from 11 mins. into the video.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ShauryaT wrote: Please learn to differentiate between the fear based objections of the left and the self interests based arguments of others.

I completely understand, why some members support this deal. The people, I have come to resepect, who support this deal, feel it is a compromise, in order to move ahead on the economic front and away from the world of sanctions and anyways, as time moves on and with our growing strength, we will have more flexible options in the future. I respectfully, disagree.

A compromise of this kind today, will have a lasting impact on the interests of India and its capabilites in the future.
I too have respect for others who are holding different views as i can understand they are doing this in national interest. Pls if you drag the Left and their ideologies here then this argument will go nowhere. No problem, I'm just curious to know what is your option in breaking the cartel WRT India's position? Or, how will you do this without any compromise... there is nothing called free lunch...
Second, you are again, taking a broad stroke to describe ALL parties leaders, in the same brush stroke. A serious fallacy in my view.
Proof of pudding is in eating, lets see.
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1205
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Post by A Sharma »

Target: caging the dragon

India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia By K. Subrahmanyam
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Post by geeth »

>>>If climate change becomes a major international issue, China will be able to cite its reactors as proof of its bonafides to reduce greenhouse gas emission.

:lol:

>>>If India is to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia, get access to high technology and become a balancer of power, it has to press ahead with the 123 Agreement.

Not for electricity..

>>>Subrahmanyam is a leading strategic analyst.

offering cutting edge spin :P
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

I think every sentence make sense so taking my effort to quote in full.
Target: caging the dragon

Guest column
India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia
By K. Subrahmanyam
The 123 Agree-ment may be a bilateral deal between India and the US. But the process involves the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of 45 nations, including Russia, France, Germany, Japan, the UK, China and the US. The aim is to get a waiver from the nuclear technology denial imposed by the NSG and, thereafter, from the regime of technology denial encompassed in international arrangements like the Australia group, Waassenaar arrangement and the missile technology control regime.
Therefore, it will not be right to look at the deal as one meant to get India into the US geo-strategic trap. In that case, Russia will not be interested in India progressing through the 123 deal, India-specific International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and waiver from the NSG.

The Indian nuclear scientific community, headed by Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Principal Scientific Adviser R. Chidambaram, has expressed satisfaction with the agreement. Some scientist strategists and MPs have objected to the deal, mainly on the basis of the provisions of the Hyde Act-which empowers the US administration to conclude the 123 Agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation by giving exemption to India, though India has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Leftists have voiced concern that the agreement and the strategic partnership that will follow will entrap India in the global US hegemonic framework. Others argue that it will cap the Indian strategic programme and hamper development of Indian nuclear technology.

The opponents and supporters harp on the Hyde Act. Supporters say the agreement does not mention the Act at all, and that its provisions are binding not on India, but only on the US. The US legislation has binding and non-binding provisions, and the US administration implements only the binding portions. The US president, in his signing statement, has made it clear that he would ignore the non-binding provisions of the Act. Also, the 123 deal will be signed by the two countries only after completion of formalities-like finalising the India-specific IAEA safeguards, obtaining the NSG waiver and getting approval from the US Congress.

Some legal experts argue that when the Congress gives its approval to the agreement, it implies that the deal conforms to the Hyde Act. Then, it will not be open for them to bring out any individual provision of the Act and the agreement will prevail over the Act. According to Article VI of the US Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, obligations of an international agreement supersede provisions of domestic law. While these issues can be debated and settled across the table, the matter has been politicised. Charges are being hurled that the government is selling out to the US. Such reckless accusations have been made in the past, too. Jawaharlal Nehru was accused of being a running dog of imperialism.

When Indira Gandhi concluded the Indo-Soviet treaty of peace and friendship, she was charged of making India a Soviet satellite. When the government introduced economic liberalisation, it was accused of trying to bring back the East India Company. In politics, no one accepts past mistakes, or apologises for use of harsh language. Misconceptions about the 123 deal are rooted in the lack of understanding of US constitutional practices and of conventional international systems. [/b]In the past 60 years, India never compromised its national security or sovereignty, even when it was a much weaker country. India-which was dependent on food imports from the US-was getting significant economic aid from that country and other western nations. Yet, it defied the US and liberated Bangladesh, carried out a nuclear test in 1974 and refused to join the Comprehensive Test ?Ban Treaty.

Today, accusations are being hurled that India will become a junior ally of the US thanks to the talk of strategic partnership with the US. For that matter, India has strategic partnerships with Russia, the European Union and Japan. India carries out military exercises not only with the US, but also with Russia and the UK, and plans similar drills with China.

Again, when leaders of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan defy the US legislators' call for a tough line on Iran, some of our people worry that India will not be able to maintain its independent policy vis-a-vis Iran. Non-alignment was a balance-of-power policy in a bipolar world, where the choice was limited. Now with six powers, there is room for greater manoeuvrability for autonomy in foreign policy.The charge that India's foreign policy is subordinated to the US comes from those who do not have confidence in India's strength and potential. They nurture an inferiority complex derived from the ?colonial era.

After all, why should the 45-member NSG agree to a waiver of its guidelines on nuclear-related supplies to India when India stays out of the NPT? India is considered a balancer of power, whose growth and technological advancement are good for balance of power in Asia and the world. Without an advanced India, China will be the overwhelmingly dominant power in Asia-a prospect not relished by the US, Russia, European Union and Japan. Only an India with a billion-plus population can balance a billion-strong China. While the major powers are trying to help India's growth in their own interests, some in this country interpret it as US conspiracy. The only countries that will benefit if the agreement with the international community does not go through will be China and Pakistan.

China avoids direct confrontation with India, but has armed Pakistan with nuclear weapons, missiles and conventional arms. Pakistan has been pursuing a low-intensity conflict with India by supporting terrorism to pin India down. China has tried hard to prevent India from going nuclear by forcing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on India.

It is not clear if those who oppose India accepting the international offer to free itself from technology apartheid and to help it to grow as a balancer of power understand the implications of their opposition. It will only subordinate India to Chinese hegemony and perpetual Pakistani threat.

It is unrealistic to expect a developing nation to become an advanced nation on its own. China is building around 31 nuclear reactors, accepting conditionalities that India would not accept. If climate change becomes a major international issue, China will be able to cite its reactors as proof of its bonafides to reduce greenhouse gas emission. If India is to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia, get access to high technology and become a balancer of power, it has to press ahead with the 123 Agreement.
RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Post by RaviCV »

ramana wrote:I had earlier asked the members to chart a course assuming the deal will go through and keeping in mind the Hyde(nn) rocks and Indian autonomy as the foremost goal. To me there is a way its just hidden!

Hyde Act reads like Hiranyakashyap's boon from the Devas.

The course must deal with
- test ya no test
- Strategic weapons posture
- Payloads
- Delivery vehicles
- Strike support system
- command and control system
- fuel import
- fuel reprocess
- reactors import ya na
- Hyde clauses
- counters to the Hyde clauses
- Economic growth to support the aspirations of the people.
Yup!!!! That's precisely the point - the Hyde Act is stiflingly comprehensive and overly-intrusive!!!! There are ways to get around the Hyde act and keep a Nation's autonomy. For example, the Chinese *might* be able to pull it off, if faced with a similar quandary. But then again they wouldn't be stupid enough to get into such a mess in the first place. For example, could you imagine the IAF forcing down a US spy plane, arresting the crew, and sending the plane back in crates? Should some "adventurous" (read insane) IAF commander ever venture to take such a step, the Indian PM (regardless of his/her party/affiliation) would prostrate before the American crew and beg forgiveness, destroy the offending IAF personnel, and perhaps, even the base.

So recipes for self-respecting people and inhabitants of former colonies are naturally different. But there's still hope to commence a change. For India (and Indians), I would say that not operationalizing the deal in the first place would be the best and only option!

The Left opposes the nuclear deal for all the wrong reasons! However, one cannot say that a square is round just because the Left says that a square is square! That's the quandary affecting all persons who aren't too terribly enthusiastic about MMS and his nuclear deal - they get lumped with the lepers (the Left)!!!!!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

RaviCV, If you want to reply to me please post your ideas not rants. I happen to think, like KS, that India can chart its course. I happen to agree with him that the biggest threat facing India currently is PRC and its adamant attitude towards India. Since Independence, India had to fight with its hands tied against a combination of West, Pakistan (which became Islamized as it couldn't face the consequences), and OIC, then the PRC and TSP and US and China. If you note the common factor in both the groupings is the US. India has an opportunity post 911 to break the Islamist alliance between US and TSP and sundry OIC and essentially TSP is on life support and is being remade by the US. I don't know how that will turn out in future.
The IUCNA gives India the chance to wean the US PRC gathering of common interest vis vis India. The next one is to wean PRC from its TSP obsession and keeping India down goal. Its not a zero sum game of winners and losers with respect to India and China (note I used China not PRC) in Asia. There is space for both civilizationally and all other 'tions"

Yes I agree that nuke power is 3% and at best will give <10%. But the deal is needed to bring India from the 'doghouse' it was sent to since 1947.
Knowing that the US policy is not allow any challenger to develop India needs to chart a new course.
Last edited by ramana on 04 Sep 2007 22:31, edited 1 time in total.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

RaviCV: Ad hominem attacks on anyone, particularly the PM will not be tolerated on this forum.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Post by Shankar »

Just finished reading the APJ interview twice in Indian Express-he never said the nuke deal is good for the country even when specifically asked but said we must go for thorium reactors and strength respects strength .He did not for obvious reason contardict the Govt stand but surely if you read between the lines his answer is clear -we cannot depend on imported fuel and reactors-period
Yes I agree that nuke power is 3% and at best will give <10%. But the deal is needed to bring India from the 'doghouse' it was sent to since 1947.
Knwoing that the US policy is not allow any challenger ot develop India needs to chart a new course.
That precisely is the point -we cannot get energy security with less than 10% or better less than 7% of our power needs and less than 3% of energy needs taken care of by imported fuel and reactors the way the govt will like us to believe and in the process the objective of the deal looses credibility

Coming to broader strategic angle US needs India today more than India needs US .The US today is not what it was pre gulf war 2 .It is still a large military machine and worlds largest economy but not so sure of the future or its military effectiveness post Iraq and to some extent post lebanon experience of Israel.


The only reason US is ready to sign the deal is because we have demonstrated the will to go our own all the way from space to nuclear weapons and fast breeders and some day the thorium reactors too.And in the process trying to cap our programs by back door techno political manipulations . So far they have succeeded. The lefts reason are wrong but their objection is based on a simple truth -the deal is not good for India.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Post by rgsrini »

He did not for obvious reason contardict the Govt stand
Please educate me about these obvious reasons...
Coming to broader strategic angle US needs India today more than India needs US
I am not sure how many Indians would agree to this claim. India is awakening and it has a good growth trajectory. However, there are lot of hurdles on its path, such as potential Chinese aggression, Pakistan nuisance, Technology denial, energy security. IMO, this deal and the relationship with the US has the potential to remove those hurdles and increase the probability of India's success.

If the price for this is to sit tight and not explode a bomb for the next 15 to 25 years, so be it (my opinion). After 15 to 25 years none of the deal will matter as India will be too big for anyone to do anything.
RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Post by RaviCV »

ramana wrote:RaviCV, If you want to reply to me please post your ideas not rants. I happen to think, like KS, that India can chart its course. I happen to agree with him that the biggest threat facing India currently is PRC and its adamant attitude towards India.Since Independence, India had to fight with its hands tied against a combination of West, Pakistan (which became Islamized as it couldn't face the consequences) and OIC, then the PRC and TSP and US and China. If you note the common factor in both the groupings is the US. India has an opportunity post 911 to break the Islamist alliance between US and TSP and sundry OIC and essentially TSP is on life support and is being remade by the US. I don't know how that will turn out in future.
The IUCNA gives India the chance to wean the US PRC gathering of common interest vis vis India. The next one is to wean PRC from its TSP obsession and keeping India down goal. Its not a zero sum game of winners and losers with respect to India and China(note I used China not PRC) in Asia. There is space for both civilizationally and all other 'tions"

Yes I agree that nuke power is 3% and at best will give <10%. But the deal is needed to bring India from the 'doghouse' it was sent to since 1947.
Knowing that the US policy is not allow any challenger to develop India needs to chart a new course.

Point form reply:


1. Sorry that you mistake objective ground realities for "rants"! Further, a more accurate statement on your part would have been "A deal is needed to bring India from the 'doghouse' it sent itself to since 1967". Incidentally, by KS do you mean K. Subramanhyam?

2. My personal opinion is don't operationalize the nuclear deal. Build up India's own stockpile of tritium and Pu. The Thorium cycle and the FBR program will initially eat into *very* significant amounts of India's Pu reserve. A realistic estimate for India's third stage of the nuclear cycle is 40 years and *not* 5 years as is sometimes loosely touted. This is exactly the duration of the Indo-US nuclear deal, and the similarity isn't coincidental. This fact has to be borne in mind, including the possibility of losses through operational mishaps, sabotage, etc. To cite an example, the LMFBR's use a sodium cooling loop, and, I trust you know what happens when liquid Na reacts with water! So there has to be sufficient coverage/insurance for these losses + an allowance for the nuclear deterrent with coverage/insurance of losses therein.

3. The ATV will significantly eat into India's pretty meager reserves of enriched U235.

4. This is the most touchy part -- testing. I wouldn't say too much about this issue except that the only way Chidambaram's claims of the yields of the Shakti series would be correct were if Nature had temporarily suspended certain fundamental laws of physics to accommodate him. I know these issues pretty well, and simulations can take you only that far!!!! There's no substitute to actual testing even with the most sophisticated codes, and, I'm sorry to tell you that India's codes aren't exactly state-of-the-art!!!

Given these technical realities, how do you propose reconciling these issues with the Hyde Act???????


5. Your observations

" India has an opportunity post 911 to break the Islamist alliance between US and TSP and sundry OIC and essentially TSP is on life support and is being remade by the US. I don't know how that will turn out in future. The IUCNA gives India the chance to wean the US PRC gathering of common interest vis vis India."

*might* have had some credibility/hope if the war in Iraq and Afganistan went better for the US and its allies, and, a Democrat White House wasn't as imminent as it is today. Given the present mood in strategic circles, where there's talk of the US led coalition giving up trying to defeat the Taliban entrenched in south Afghanistan and instead "contain them", any hopes of breaking the Islamist alliance between US and TSP and sundry OIC might well be Nehruvian inspirations (read toothless waffle)! Sure the TSP is on life support, but it has a curious habit of getting its way even under life support. For example, the Taliban's 65th brigade (traditionally al Qaeda) is now being manned by Pakistani regulars, freeing the AQ terrorists for tasks elsewhere! Now, how/why could/would they be doing this especially when they're on life support? Ask yourself!!!!!!

5. So, given the above mosaic of scenarios that sometimes diverge and converge, you have two choices:

1. Get out of the deal now, since changing it to be more even-handed is impossible at this stage now that the American's have smelt blood. Sure there will be some loss of face, but that’s a small cost compared to what India will have to pay once it is bound and gagged by the Hyde Act! Remember, it's suicidal to sign any agreement *assuming* the credibility of your cornerstone – the Shakti test yields. India got away relatively unscathed after POK-II because it never signed any agreement not to test. The 123 agreement allows India to test. However, the financial costs would be back breaking and the diplomatic fallout from the Hyde Act would be devastating and even opossibly Nation breaking!
2. Go ahead with the deal, and face China and Pakistan with both hands tied behind your back + …………
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

geeth wrote:Kalam's words, "strength only respects strength"
Now that Kalam himself is endorsing the deal I presume he knows what strenght really means. No need for any other interpretation. Kalam says it all and his word is final in my opinion and for many in India.
RaviCV wrote:In all honesty, it's the IMF and not MMS who unshackled the Indian economy!
I am waiting expectantly: what next in your brilliant conclusion.
RaviCV wrote:bound and gagged by the Hyde Act
Could you lay out the exact legal clauses that imply your fantasies about Hyde and India. I fail to see any such implications from current 123 wording.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Kanson wrote: what is your option in breaking the cartel WRT India's position? Or, how will you do this without any compromise... there is nothing called free lunch...
It is unlikely that India will be able to break the cartel today or in the near future. The best thing to do here is to focus on other forms of energy. In the nuclear realm, focus on the 3 stage and take the indigeneous nuclear cycle to its logical conclusions, which is about 12,000 MW of power in the medium term.

The compromise on the nuclear front to deal with the cartel should have been done, once the AHWR was up and running.
Second, you are again, taking a broad stroke to describe ALL parties leaders, in the same brush stroke. A serious fallacy in my view.
Proof of pudding is in eating, lets see.[/quote] A more careful observation of govenment policy on most fronts, should tell you the difference between the governments.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

ramana wrote:I had earlier asked the members to chart a course assuming the deal will go through and keeping in mind the Hyde(nn) rocks and Indian autonomy as the foremost goal. To me there is a way its just hidden!

Hyde Act reads like Hiranyakashyap's boon from the Devas.

The course must deal with
- test ya no test
- Strategic weapons posture
- Payloads
- Delivery vehicles
- Strike support system
- command and control system
- fuel import
- fuel reprocess
- reactors import ya na
- Hyde clauses
- counters to the Hyde clauses
- Economic growth to support the aspirations of the people.
Ramana: The deal will go through, there seems to be little doubt on that score. The one thing, I expect a future governement to do is to declare that India will not put any more indigeneous reactors under safeguards and in an FMCT world, all reactors do not automatically become "civilian".

Legally, we should not have broken any agreements but will change the fundamental trajectory of this deal and dash the hopes of the NPA's.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Ramana wrote:
I had earlier asked the members to chart a course assuming the deal will go through and keeping in mind the Hyde(nn) rocks and Indian autonomy as the foremost goal. To me there is a way its just hidden!

Hyde Act reads like Hiranyakashyap's boon from the Devas.

The course must deal with
- test ya no test
- Strategic weapons posture
-- fuel import
- fuel reprocess
- reactors import ya na
- Hyde clauses
- counters to the Hyde clauses
- Economic growth to support the aspirations of the people.

Based on the above laundry list of concerns, a possible breakdown of how these may tie together.

-- The Hyde act.

The Hyde act's clauses need to be countered both in the short term and the long term --- diversifying suppliers and building secondary auxillary relations with countries outside the US Quad. grouping is essential to reduce the effectiveness of the poison pills in the hyde act.

-- Reactor Imports
Unless the imports kick in as soon as possible, a lot of the scenarios below may be delayed as they are further downstream that depend on reprocessing safeguarded fuel and also ensuring that India possess the strategic fuel reserve --- nuclear waste to be reprocessed can be considered strategic fuel reserve. so if anyone gets funny ideas about screwing India down the line, India can invoke supreme national interests and use the fuel from the reprocessing center...no need for the US or anyone else assistance to achieve this, I think.


The final IAEA/NSG guidelines need to give India more leg room to source civilian nuclear tech. from a variety of sources in the short term.
The MUST NOT be more restrictive than 123...and if it is, this deal may not be all that it is advertised to be by MMS and the GOTUS.

Parliament must specify a cutoff date after which the GoI will not be able to import more plants unless the local program is unable to meet intermediate deadlines. The relevant agencies need to come clean as to the source of these delays and whether India's relationship with the US is in fact impeding the local program (It may be a good idea to have a local watchdog that keeps track of whether the local civilian 3-stage program is being funded adequately and is proceeding at the right pace).

-- test/no test

If India's ability to counter external pressures in the event testing increases over time, this is a non issue. The fear that if such a thing happens, the US will grab all the plants back etc. is a legitimate one, but if US engagement with India results in more trade ties, and following US laws is going to hurt business ties with India....the US may either not recognize reality (if US-India relations are not in an upswing at the future point) or change its laws to be in consonance with reality, and this is the reason why the Hyde Act only applies to the US. People who think that the US will invoke the clauses in the Hyde act and hurt business interests with India (if they are strong at the future point) should probably note that China's proliferation to Pakistan was winked at by the US was done to protect US's business interests --- this will be pulled up at the appropriate time to put China on the defensive in the future.....past silence does not necessarily imply future silence, especially if future ties are closer to being downward rather than upward.

Fuel reprocessing:-


safeguarded:

No safeguarded waste can be produced until the imported plants come online (by 2015?) Reprocessing of the waste from the imported plants can only be availed of after imported plants have been operational for a while. Which means, safeguarded nuclear spent fuel is not a concern or a resource for a decade. India needs to kick up its sourcing of unsafeguarded fuel in high gear during this period.


Since safeguarded waste is how India is supposed to kickstart the local AHWR-based civilian program, and also given the "strategic reserves" India needs to build and depending on the timelines of AHWR, the spent fuel in the IAEA-monitored facility must have enougn spent fuel as "strategic reserve" and the any spent fuel above that can be used in the safeguarded AHWRs.


Unsafeguarded fuel:

During the initial period where safeguarded fuel will not be available for reprocessing, India needs to kick up the local program in high gear for obvious reasons.

The other side of this concern is that unsafeguarded fuel stockpiles need to exist so that the GoI follows a thumb rule like: for building every AHWR that uses safeguarded fuel (and is thus under safeguards), India's unsafeguarded stockpile must be enough to own and operate an unsafeguarded AHWR -- to put it simply, the number of unsafeguarded AHWRs using India's own fuel musts ALWAYS be greater than the number to those using safeguarded fuel...this seems necessary in order for India to wean itself off safeguarded fuel in the long term.

The FBRs that exist must start working on feeding this pipeline as soon as feasible. A side implication of this concern is the unsafeguarded material stockpile must be build up with utmost urgency and by all reports India is starting to kick up U mining a notch...that needs to be sustained in the long term for India to be truly energy independent.

If a majority of India's AHWRs start to use safeguarded fuel, India's energy independence will be in jeopardy.


- Strategic Weapons Posture:
- Payloads
- Delivery vehicles
- Strike support system
- command and control system

Don't know enough to comment -- BR Gurus know more about it.


JMTP
Last edited by Rye on 04 Sep 2007 02:11, edited 8 times in total.
RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Post by RaviCV »

bala wrote:
geeth wrote:Kalam's words, "strength only respects strength"
Now that Kalam himself is endorsing the deal I presume he knows what strenght really means. No need for any other interpretation. Kalam says it all and his word is final in my opinion and for many in India.
RaviCV wrote:In all honesty, it's the IMF and not MMS who unshackled the Indian economy!
I am waiting expectantly: what next in your brilliant conclusion.
RaviCV wrote:bound and gagged by the Hyde Act
Could you lay out the exact legal clauses that imply your fantasies about Hyde and India. I fail to see any such implications from current 123 wording.
Read the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement, and realize that one is a piece of legislature in the worlds most powerful country that values its freedom and democracy, while, the other is merely an agreement between two Nations. The Hyde Act supersedes the 123 agreement, which means that the US can justify any excesses or breaches of agreement using this Act. I'd love to read your brilliant conclusions. Ramana has pretty succintly stated out the various issues that the Hyde Act encompasses - he's only missed out weapons design!

Pray, do share the deliberations of your unbounded wisdom with this forum!!!!!!
RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Post by RaviCV »

Rye wrote:Ramana wrote:
I had earlier asked the members to chart a course assuming the deal will go through and keeping in mind the Hyde(nn) rocks and Indian autonomy as the foremost goal. To me there is a way its just hidden!

Hyde Act reads like Hiranyakashyap's boon from the Devas.

The course must deal with
- test ya no test
- Strategic weapons posture
-- fuel import
- fuel reprocess
- reactors import ya na
- Hyde clauses
- counters to the Hyde clauses
- Economic growth to support the aspirations of the people.

Based on the above laundry list of concerns, a possible breakdown of how these may tie together.

-- The Hyde act.

The Hyde act's clauses need to be countered both in the short term and the long term --- diversifying suppliers and building secondary auxillary relations with countries outside the US Quad. grouping is essential to reduce the effectiveness of the poison pills in the hyde act.

-- Reactor Imports
Unless the imports kick in as soon as possible, a lot of the scenarios below may be delayed as they are further downstream that depend on reprocessing safeguarded fuel and also ensuring that India possess the strategic fuel reserve --- nuclear waste to be reprocessed can be considered strategic fuel reserve. so if anyone gets funny ideas about screwing India down the line, India can invoke supreme national interests and use the fuel from the reprocessing center...no need for the US or anyone else assistance to achieve this, I think.


The final IAEA/NSG guidelines need to give India more leg room to source civilian nuclear tech. from a variety of sources in the short term.
The MUST NOT be more restrictive than 123...and if it is, this deal may not be all that it is advertised to be by MMS and the GOTUS.

Parliament must specify a cutoff date after which the GoI will not be able to import more plants unless the local program is unable to meet intermediate deadlines. The relevant agencies need to come clean as to the source of these delays and whether India's relationship with the US is in fact impeding the local program (It may be a good idea to have a local watchdog that keeps track of whether the local civilian 3-stage program is being funded adequately and is proceeding at the right pace).

-- test/no test

If India's ability to counter external pressures in the event testing increases over time, this is a non issue. The fear that if such a thing happens, the US will grab all the plants back etc. is a legitimate one, but if US engagement with India results in more trade ties, and following US laws is going to hurt business ties with India....the US may either not recognize reality (if US-India relations are not in an upswing at the future point) or change its laws to be in consonance with reality, and this is the reason why the Hyde Act only applies to the US. People who think that the US will invoke the clauses in the Hyde act and hurt business interests with India (if they are strong at the future point) should probably note that China's proliferation to Pakistan was winked at by the US was done to protect US's business interests --- this will be pulled up at the appropriate time to put China on the defensive in the future.....past silence does not necessarily imply future silence, especially if future ties are closer to being downward rather than upward.

Fuel reprocessing:-


safeguarded:

No safeguarded waste can be produced until the imported plants come online (by 2015?) Reprocessing of the waste from the imported plants can only be availed of after imported plants have been operational for a while. Which means, safeguarded nuclear spent fuel is not a concern or a resource for a decade. India needs to kick up its sourcing of unsafeguarded fuel in high gear during this period.


Since safeguarded waste is how India is supposed to kickstart the local AHWR-based civilian program, and also given the "strategic reserves" India needs to build and depending on the timelines of AHWR, the spent fuel in the IAEA-monitored facility must have enougn spent fuel as "strategic reserve" and the any spent fuel above that can be used in the safeguarded AHWRs.


Unsafeguarded fuel:

During the initial period where safeguarded fuel will not be available for reprocessing, India needs to kick up the local program in high gear, so that by the time the spent fuel becomes available, India's AHWR tech is mature enough to use the spent fuel.


The other side of this concern is that unsafeguarded fuel stockpiles need to exist so that the GoI follows a thumb rule like: for building every AHWR that uses safeguarded fuel (and is thus under safeguards), India's unsafeguarded stockpile must be enough to own and operate an unsafeguarded AHWR -- to put it simply, the number of unsafeguarded AHWRs using India's own fuel musts ALWAYS be greater than the number to those using safeguarded fuel...this seems necessary in order for India to wean itself off safeguarded fuel in the long term.

The FBRs that exist must start working on feeding this pipelines as soon as feasible. A side implication of this concern is the unsafeguarded material stockpile must be build up with utmost urgency and by all reports India is starting to kick up U mining a notch...that needs to be sustained in the long term for India to be truly energy independent.

If a majority of India's AHWRs start to use safeguarded fuel, India's energy independence will be in jeopardy.


- Strategic Weapons Posture:
- Payloads
- Delivery vehicles
- Strike support system
- command and control system

Don't know enough to comment -- BR Gurus know more about it.


JMTP
Rye,

As a piecemeal answer/suggestion/addendum to your extensive post, in case the deal does go through, the AEC should run the Tritium extraction from the heavy water plants and Pu reprocessing plants 24 x 7. I wonder whether there are sufficient stocks of the Purex solvent for such sustained operations of the Pu reprocessing plants!!!!
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

RaviCV wrote:
ramana wrote:RaviCV< If you want to reply to me please psot your ideas not rants. i happen to think like KS that India can chart its course. I happen to agree with him that the biggest threat facing India currently is PRC and its adamant attitude towards India.Since Independence, India had to fight with its hands tied against a combination of West, Pakistan (which became Islamized as it couldn't face the consequences) and OIC, then the PRC and TSP and US and China. If you note the common factor in both the groupings is the US. India has an opportunity post 911 to break the Islamist alliance between US and TSP and sundry OIC and essentially TSP is on life support and is being remade by the US. I don't know how that will turn out in future.
The IUCNA gives India the chance to wean the US PRC gathering of common interest vis vis India. The next one is to wean PRC from its TSP obsession and keeping India down goal. Its not a zero sum game of winners and losers with respect to India and China(note I used China not PRC) in Asia. There is space for both civilizationally and all other 'tions"

Yes I agree that nuke power is 3% and at best will give <10%. But the deal is needed to bring India from the 'doghouse' it was sent to since 1947.
Knwoing that the US policy is not allow any challenger ot develop India needs to chart a new course.
Point form reply:
1. Sorry that you mistake objective ground realities for "rants"! Further, a more accurate statement on your part would have been "A deal is needed to bring India from the 'doghouse' it sent itself to since 1967". Incidentally, by KS do you mean K. Subramanhyam?
Who else.
2. My personal opinion is don't operationalize the nuclear deal. Build up India's own stockpile of tritium and Pu. The Thorium cycle and the FBR program will initially eat into *very* significant amounts of India's Pu reserve.
That is bull crap. Please read BR archives for Nuclear discussion, that will help your understanding big time.
A realistic estimate for India's third stage of the nuclear cycle is 40 years and *not* 5 years as is sometimes loosely touted. This is exactly the duration of the Indo-US nuclear deal, and the similarity isn't coincidental. This fact has to be borne in mind, including the possibility of losses through operational mishaps, sabotage, etc. To cite an example, the LMFBR's use a sodium cooling loop, and, I trust you know what happens when liquid Na reacts with water! So there has to be sufficient coverage/insurance for these losses + an allowance for the nuclear deterrent with coverage/insurance of losses therein.
Boss the guy you are talking to is no newbie, having worked on FBR for many year and know the subject matter and its paraphernalia very well.
3. The ATV will significantly eat into India's pretty meager reserves of enriched U235.
Again pls read the BR archives and pls do not mix apple with oranges. Indian strategic weapons are Pu based not enriched U based. Enriched U235 is dedicated for ATV only and nothing is eating into that meager reserves of enriched U235.
4. This is the most touchy part -- testing. I wouldn't say too much about this issue except that the only way Chidambaram's claims of the yields of the Shakti series would be correct were if Nature had temporarily suspended certain fundamental laws of physics to accommodate him.
I will be most delighted if you turnout to be more informed than RC and know in sufficient detail the design detail of Shakti-S1, else IMHO this is most far flunged outrageous claim I have heard. Please enlighten us with some pearls of wisdom to substantiate your claims on yield of SHakti series before any credibility be given to your opinion.
I know these issues pretty well, and simulations can take you only that far!!!! There's no substitute to actual testing even with the most sophisticated codes, and, I'm sorry to tell you that India's codes aren't exactly state-of-the-art!!!
Please enlighten us on your understanding of Shakti series and the data came from it and the trade and your claimed knowledge / expertise, before we come to the question of "actual testing is MUST" and your opinion there of.
5. Your observations
" India has an opportunity post 911 to break the Islamist alliance between US and TSP and sundry OIC and essentially TSP is on life support and is being remade by the US. I don't know how that will turn out in future. The IUCNA gives India the chance to wean the US PRC gathering of common interest vis vis India."
*might* have had some credibility/hope if the war in Iraq and Afganistan went better for the US and its allies, and, a Democrat White House wasn't as imminent as it is today. Given the present mood in strategic circles, where there's talk of the US led coalition giving up trying to defeat the Taliban entrenched in south Afghanistan and instead "contain them", any hopes of breaking the Islamist alliance between US and TSP and sundry OIC might well be Nehruvian inspirations (read toothless waffle)! Sure the TSP is on life support, but it has a curious habit of getting its way even under life support. For example, the Taliban's 65th brigade (traditionally al Qaeda) is now being manned by Pakistani regulars, freeing the AQ terrorists for tasks elsewhere! Now, how/why could/would they be doing this especially when they're on life support? Ask yourself!!!!!!
Ahh .. India should piss in its pants from these fearful sermon.

Boss the world is not static and fossilized, its a living thing and India has to use US as much it serves Indian interest to come out of the net that has constrained it for last 60 years. Its a symbiotic use of US as long it does not undercut Indian interests.

I agree with Ramana's assessment, First UK created TSP to constrain free India, and the US figured it out to join UK adding IOC into the milieu. And in early 1960's China figured it out to build another PRC-TSP-US axis. US is common in both axis and taking out US and on our side will allow India to get a fresh air from this deadlock on its neck. USA is now threatened by Islamic monster and also PRC has emerged as its primary challenger. As much as India use US to get out of the tough situation India has been till today, US may use India for its own end without jeopardizing India.
5. So, given the above mosaic of scenarios that sometimes diverge and converge, you have two choices:

1. Get out of the deal now, since changing it to be more even-handed is impossible at this stage now that the American's have smelt blood. Sure there will be some loss of face, but that’s a small cost compared to what India will have to pay once it is bound and gagged by the Hyde Act! Remember, it's suicidal to sign any agreement *assuming* the credibility of your cornerstone – the Shakti test yields. India got away relatively unscathed after POK-II because it never signed any agreement not to test. The 123 agreement allows India to test. However, the financial costs would be back breaking and the diplomatic fallout from the Hyde Act would be devastating and even opossibly Nation breaking!
I am very confident that there are many more unfavorable options and the above position is wrong.
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Post by milindc »

RaviCV wrote: India got away relatively unscathed after POK-II because it never signed any agreement not to test. The 123 agreement allows India to test. However, the financial costs would be back breaking and the diplomatic fallout from the Hyde Act would be devastating and even opossibly Nation breaking!
If testing causes 'Nation breaking' fallout, then wouldn't GoI use the accumulated bhramastras? What prevents us from threating the whole world if our survival is at stake. I'm just :-?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

RaviCV wrote: Rye,

As a piecemeal answer/suggestion/addendum to your extensive post, in case the deal does go through, the AEC should run the Tritium extraction from the heavy water plants and Pu reprocessing plants 24 x 7. I wonder whether there are sufficient stocks of the Purex solvent for such sustained operations of the Pu reprocessing plants!!!!
Before issuing the hyper alert please tell us:

1. How much is Indian Tritium needs for stockpile and per annum replenishment?

2. What is Indian Tritium stockpile and its annual T extraction capabelity from say the 12 reactors that will not eventually fall in civilian catagory?

3. Based on the two answers above why India should go on a hyper drive to recover the last iota of Ti from PHWR? I think you will find answers to your own questions.

And on Plutonium:
4. How much is Indian Pu needs for stockpile and per annum stockpile buildup?

5. What is Indian Pu stockpile from all current reactors outside IAEA and its annual Pu extraction capabelity from say the 12 reactors that will not eventually fall in civilian catagory?

6. Based on the two answers above I think you will find answers to your own questions.

Till then please keep your peace on the subject.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

milindc wrote:
RaviCV wrote: India got away relatively unscathed after POK-II because it never signed any agreement not to test. The 123 agreement allows India to test. However, the financial costs would be back breaking and the diplomatic fallout from the Hyde Act would be devastating and even opossibly Nation breaking!
If testing causes 'Nation breaking' fallout, then wouldn't GoI use the accumulated bhramastras? What prevents us from threating the whole world if our survival is at stake. I'm just :-?
Milindc: Dont have to go that far to count the chickens. The rhetorical question to answer the question is: When India DID NOT sign any agreement (aka NPT/CTBT and other 3-4 letter obsecenitites) why did India get unlawfully penalized pretty bad (with non-UN sanctions ) by US lead private clubs like NSC, MRTC and other Atlantist clubhouses?
One needs an introductory course on Game Theory to understand the purpose of laws and treaties.

Answering the above question will lead to understanding that India need to protect its skin by all means, that often means riding (read trampling) on heads and shoulders of other countries.

I laughed :lol: when I read:
India got away relatively unscathed after POK-II because it never signed any agreement not to test.
The truth is that India got away because of some very different reasons that BTW was already forecast correctly by GoI babu's in strategic department. While the GoI babus in Finance Ministry & RBI were trying to scare the PM to piss in his pants.

As for Hyde(nn) Act, Shri KS very aptly addressed them in his latest article posted by Kanson (I am colour highlighting it). I am quoting again because it is worth to be re-read by all:
Kanson wrote:I think every sentence make sense so taking my effort to quote in full.
Target: caging the dragon

Guest column
India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia
By K. Subrahmanyam
The 123 Agree-ment may be a bilateral deal between India and the US. But the process involves the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of 45 nations, including Russia, France, Germany, Japan, the UK, China and the US. The aim is to get a waiver from the nuclear technology denial imposed by the NSG and, thereafter, from the regime of technology denial encompassed in international arrangements like the Australia group, Waassenaar arrangement and the missile technology control regime.
Therefore, it will not be right to look at the deal as one meant to get India into the US geo-strategic trap. In that case, Russia will not be interested in India progressing through the 123 deal, India-specific International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and waiver from the NSG.

The Indian nuclear scientific community, headed by Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Principal Scientific Adviser R. Chidambaram, has expressed satisfaction with the agreement. Some scientist strategists and MPs have objected to the deal, mainly on the basis of the provisions of the Hyde Act-which empowers the US administration to conclude the 123 Agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation by giving exemption to India, though India has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Leftists have voiced concern that the agreement and the strategic partnership that will follow will entrap India in the global US hegemonic framework. Others argue that it will cap the Indian strategic programme and hamper development of Indian nuclear technology.

The opponents and supporters harp on the Hyde Act. Supporters say the agreement does not mention the Act at all, and that its provisions are binding not on India, but only on the US. The US legislation has binding and non-binding provisions, and the US administration implements only the binding portions. The US president, in his signing statement, has made it clear that he would ignore the non-binding provisions of the Act. Also, the 123 deal will be signed by the two countries only after completion of formalities-like finalising the India-specific IAEA safeguards, obtaining the NSG waiver and getting approval from the US Congress.

Some legal experts argue that when the Congress gives its approval to the agreement, it implies that the deal conforms to the Hyde Act. Then, it will not be open for them to bring out any individual provision of the Act and the agreement will prevail over the Act. According to Article VI of the US Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, obligations of an international agreement supersede provisions of domestic law. While these issues can be debated and settled across the table, the matter has been politicised. Charges are being hurled that the government is selling out to the US. Such reckless accusations have been made in the past, too. Jawaharlal Nehru was accused of being a running dog of imperialism.

When Indira Gandhi concluded the Indo-Soviet treaty of peace and friendship, she was charged of making India a Soviet satellite. When the government introduced economic liberalisation, it was accused of trying to bring back the East India Company. In politics, no one accepts past mistakes, or apologises for use of harsh language. Misconceptions about the 123 deal are rooted in the lack of understanding of US constitutional practices and of conventional international systems. [/b]In the past 60 years, India never compromised its national security or sovereignty, even when it was a much weaker country. India-which was dependent on food imports from the US-was getting significant economic aid from that country and other western nations. Yet, it defied the US and liberated Bangladesh, carried out a nuclear test in 1974 and refused to join the Comprehensive Test ?Ban Treaty.

Today, accusations are being hurled that India will become a junior ally of the US thanks to the talk of strategic partnership with the US. For that matter, India has strategic partnerships with Russia, the European Union and Japan. India carries out military exercises not only with the US, but also with Russia and the UK, and plans similar drills with China.

Again, when leaders of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan defy the US legislators' call for a tough line on Iran, some of our people worry that India will not be able to maintain its independent policy vis-a-vis Iran. Non-alignment was a balance-of-power policy in a bipolar world, where the choice was limited. Now with six powers, there is room for greater manoeuvrability for autonomy in foreign policy.The charge that India's foreign policy is subordinated to the US comes from those who do not have confidence in India's strength and potential. They nurture an inferiority complex derived from the ?colonial era.

After all, why should the 45-member NSG agree to a waiver of its guidelines on nuclear-related supplies to India when India stays out of the NPT? India is considered a balancer of power, whose growth and technological advancement are good for balance of power in Asia and the world. Without an advanced India, China will be the overwhelmingly dominant power in Asia-a prospect not relished by the US, Russia, European Union and Japan. Only an India with a billion-plus population can balance a billion-strong China. While the major powers are trying to help India's growth in their own interests, some in this country interpret it as US conspiracy. The only countries that will benefit if the agreement with the international community does not go through will be China and Pakistan.

China avoids direct confrontation with India, but has armed Pakistan with nuclear weapons, missiles and conventional arms. Pakistan has been pursuing a low-intensity conflict with India by supporting terrorism to pin India down. China has tried hard to prevent India from going nuclear by forcing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on India.

It is not clear if those who oppose India accepting the international offer to free itself from technology apartheid and to help it to grow as a balancer of power understand the implications of their opposition. It will only subordinate India to Chinese hegemony and perpetual Pakistani threat.

It is unrealistic to expect a developing nation to become an advanced nation on its own. China is building around 31 nuclear reactors, accepting conditionalities that India would not accept. If climate change becomes a major international issue, China will be able to cite its reactors as proof of its bonafides to reduce greenhouse gas emission. If India is to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia, get access to high technology and become a balancer of power, it has to press ahead with the 123 Agreement.
-----------------------------------------

Added later: My salute to Shri K.Subrahmanyam.
Last edited by Arun_S on 04 Sep 2007 03:57, edited 1 time in total.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

RaviCV wrote:I'd love to read your brilliant conclusions. Ramana has pretty succintly stated out the various issues that the Hyde Act encompasses - he's only missed out weapons design! Pray, do share the deliberations of your unbounded wisdom with this forum
Just goes to show how shallow your reasonings are since you don't want to lay out anything logical. 123 text clearly states that the deal with India is civilian not weapons and Hyde can be invoked only in the civilian sphere. India is not signing anything that has to do with weapons. Read 123 article 2, 16 from the archives on this topic, this has been analyzed umpteen times. Hyde Act can be invoked by the US president however he/she deems fit but 123 cannot be used as a legal excuse for weapons testing. Whether the US wants to or not is up to them but legally speaking India never gave up its rights on weapons testing. If you are still unclear please ask a contracts lawyer to help you read contracts.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Left's massive campaign against joint naval exercise (Rediff)
The Left parties in Bhubaneshwar on Monday announced plans for a mass campaign against the joint naval exercise, involving India, the US, Japan [Images], Australia and Singapore, scheduled to begin in the Bay of Bengal from Tuesday.

Addressing a joint press conference, CPI, CPI-M and Forward Bloc leaders hit out at the Centre for joining the joint exercise and said a 'jatha' from Kolkata would pass through Orissa from Tuesday to reach Vishakhapattanam on September 8.

The jatha, to be flagged off by CPI-M veteran Jyoti Basu in Kolkata, would enter Orissa on Tuesday at Jaleshwar, where a public meeting is slated to be held, CPI state secretary Dibakar Nayak said.

Over a dozen public meetings are expected to be held during the Jatha at different places including Baleswar, Soro, Bhadrak, Chandikhol, Tangi, Cuttack, Bhubaneswar, Khurda, Balunga, Rambha, Ganjam, Chhatrapur and Berhampur, Nayak, CPI-M state secretary Janardan Pati and Forward Bloc state secretary Santosh Mitra said.

Around 50 leaders and workers from Orissa would join the jatha as part of the campaign against the joint exercise, being held as part of an "imperialistic design", they said.

On the cholera situation in Orissa, they said Left parties have already given a call for a state-wide bandh on September 10 though they are not asking Naveen Patnaik government to step down, as done by Congress.
The left (Yechori, IIRC) claimed with a straight face that the left in India has nothing to do with China and that the Indian media is bought out to make such allegations. And now they oppose naval exercises amongst democracies because it excludes China. They were more silent than NoKo's human rights activists when PRC manouvered to exclude India from ASEAN+3 and then from the SCO.

You simply have to admire the audacity of our commies. Success comes to those who dare, they say. Some may differ and say this is not audacity as much as it is indignant, brazen lying with a straight face, in the case of Yechori and half carat. But it surely takes guts to lie like that, I say? No hint, no sign, no whisper of any LKK syndrome anywhere. The commies have shown repeatedly they'll go to any length, utter any lie, kill any number to achieve their end. Which will be the end for the rest of us when they do get there.

What nerve. Admirable. Truly. Impressive. Massively so.

How I wish such audacity were put in the service of the nation. In the service of nationalism. Of rejuvenating India's and Indic culture's narrative. Of taking the fight to the jihadists targeting this cradle of civilization, sone ki chidya. Beacon and Hope for the world.

Aaah. Am rambling now. Better to stop. Have a nice day all.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

CPM thinks that the naval exercise is a defacto four power alliance against PRC - part of caging the dragon. However it is not. If a dragon can get caged so easily then its paper dragon!
The reason why these exercises(Malabar series) are in Bay of Bengal is that the Arabian Sea the traditional area is quite supercharged and will send wrong signals to Iran. Once they were moved to Bay of Bengal it was easy of the East Asian navies to participate as it is closer to their area of operations.

Btw recall only ten years ago the RAN was dropping sonobuoys in the path of INS Mysore/Delhi to get their signature for their own purposes!
Last edited by ramana on 04 Sep 2007 03:46, edited 1 time in total.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Makes one wonder why the CPI&M Oiuseaules are more Chinese than China to "vigorously" implement strategic ties with India

China will "vigorously" implement a bilateral agreement to upgrade Sino-Indian relations to strategic levels, Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, said while hinting that Beijing is open to civilian nuclear energy cooperation with all countries under the IAEA safeguards, sources said here on Monday. Yang also welcomed India's improving relations with the US, Japan and other major powers. There were no negative remarks on the forthcoming naval exercises, senior Indian delegation sources said here before winding up their visit Monday after a visit to the historic city of Xi'an in northwest China.
RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Post by RaviCV »

bala wrote:
RaviCV wrote:I'd love to read your brilliant conclusions. Ramana has pretty succintly stated out the various issues that the Hyde Act encompasses - he's only missed out weapons design! Pray, do share the deliberations of your unbounded wisdom with this forum
Just goes to show how shallow your reasonings are since you don't want to lay out anything logical. 123 text clearly states that the deal with India is civilian not weapons and Hyde can be invoked only in the civilian sphere. India is not signing anything that has to do with weapons. Read 123 article 2, 16 from the archives on this topic, this has been analyzed umpteen times. Hyde Act can be invoked by the US president however he/she deems fit but 123 cannot be used as a legal excuse for weapons testing. Whether the US wants to or not is up to them but legally speaking India never gave up its rights on weapons testing. If you are still unclear please ask a contracts lawyer to help you read contracts.
I read the archives and found them to be pretty illuminating. The arguments are quite persuasive. In fact, there is indeed a case in point to navigate through the Hyde Act and still keep the deal alive.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

ShauryaT wrote:
enqyoob wrote:The US-India agreement is the 123, NOT the Hyde Act. What the Hyde tells the US President, is no more relevant to the international agreement than what the Indian Parliament tells the Indian PM.
Let the Parliament have its say then - without party whips. MMS did not even allow a sense of the Parliament, even to strengthen him in August 06, he dare not take a vote, without party whips now.

I promise if the democratic will of the people (without party whips) is expressed and it is for this deal, not one more post from me, on this subject.
As for spying, well, is it your position that without the agreement with the US, there is no US spying directed at the Indian nuclear and weapons programs?
The devil will keep on trying, no matter what. The last thing you do is, deal with the devil in a manner that allows him, inside your house, knowing fully well, what the intentions are. The devil has not hidden his face.
So, from the American POV, reading the newspapers or the gazillion posts by postors like yourself on this forum, one would rightly conclude that this deal is entirely a scam by India to get nuke fuel and technology from civilized countries so that India can build nookulear weapons as fast as India can dig up uranimum ore, and also to produce weapons-grade fissile material from thorium reserves.
It is quite easy, to broad stroke all in a single stroke and resort to sound bites. Saves you from meaningful debate.

As far as the AMERICAN POV is concerned, it is spelled out in full color as the Henry J. Hyde act.
People like yourself have been working overtime, telling the world that this is what India is about - a bunch of yahoos intent on putting up a whole rack of nuclear missiles to threaten civilization, like Hitler did, or like Saddam tried to do. So that no one in their right mind would want to deal with India.
Do you really think, it is that difficult for me to be calling you names, such as Mir Jaffer and a traitor, who sold out for a few crumbs? You are welcome to resort to your favorite epithets, in the hope that you may win the debate by hitting below the belt and scaring everyone away. I am afraid, this tactic, does not impress anyone. Try harder.
So that we continue to be isolated, and denied the opportunity to progress. So that you'll have more of a constituency for your soapbox to paranoia and xenophobia.
No one can beat you in the soapbox category. You are the uncrowned king, in use of sound bites to create a lot of heat and no light.

I am guilty of being paranoid. Paranoid about India's interests. But, finally, you charge me of being xenophobic! All this hate, just for having a different point of view. What is it N^3, you are either with me or against me? And, if you are against me, then here is a list of epithets, I will use against, you. And, I care for facts, not.

There is no "annual certification" in the 123.
Ever seen a contract, that references other contracts?
As for the Hyde, the "annual certification" is in the NON-BINDING
Care to enlighten us, exactly, where does Hyde say that these parts of this law, are not binding?

If you are referring to the Presidential signing statement, then care to elighten us the validity of these statements, as per US constitutional laws?

Care to tell us, if these signing statements last beyond the term of the President?
part - trying to tell the President what he SHOULD do. NOT what he HAS to do.
There is no such thing as "should" or "has". Please read beyond what the spin masters spin for you. COTUS makes US law, not advisories. The President conducts policy as per, US law. Yet, there is separation of powers and the President is ultimately responsible for the security of the country and hence holds wide latitude in interpretation and implementation.

My point is, there is no such thing as SHOULD or HAS to do. COTUS has its job to do, to make laws and the President has to implement policy.

The President is not waking up every morning to figure out, which Law is he going to break today. The President upholds US law. Plain and simple.
This is no more relevant than what the Shiv Sena tells the Prime Minister of India that he SHOULD do.
Have you lost it? You are now comparing the role that COTUS plays in the US constitutional process to the Sive Sena?
Read my Lips!

INDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a REPUBLIC.

I know what you want.. In India, there are 4 foxes for every hen. So you (the fox) want them to vote on things for each and every decision..... This way, its the hen that gets eaten...every time.

Your way of thinking is well known. Its precisely why there is no Government in this world thats a "Democracy"!
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Post by Victor »

My daily BR fix comes in part from constant amusement provided by "experts" who appear suddenly and rubbish all the real experts :).

Arre bhai, if India's own uberjingo nuke & rocket scientists openly endorse the deal, I don't need anyone--specialy pinkos, pakis and pandapokers--telling me why it is a bad deal.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Manny wrote:Read my Lips!

INDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a REPUBLIC.

Your way of thinking is well known. Its precisely why there is no Government in this world thats a "Democracy"! :rotfl:
May be you should read the Constitution of India .

And a request, before you let people "read your lips".. Stop quoting the whole post..
PREAMBLE :

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Post by RaviCV »

Deleted
Last edited by RaviCV on 04 Sep 2007 09:53, edited 2 times in total.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

Sanku wrote:
pradeepe wrote: I agree, thats a reasonable argument. But again as I have said, my perspective is different. In a democracy like India, every possible movement will be contested. .
Indeed; and that is why it is incumbent for a Govt to either have clear majority; or through open negotiations with the primary stateholders in the parliament evolve a system which is acceptable to all.

(/OT)
ROFLMAO.. Riiiiight. Here comes every Tom Dick and Rama to re write the constitution!

:eek: :D
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

Tilak wrote:
Manny wrote:Read my Lips!

INDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a REPUBLIC.

Your way of thinking is well known. Its precisely why there is no Government in this world thats a "Democracy"! :rotfl:
May be you should read the Constitution of India .

And a request, before you let people "read your lips".. Stop quoting the whole post..
PREAMBLE :

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

It means, you get to elect you representatives democratically. after that YOU have no say on the day to day decisions until the next election. Kapish? Thats a republic. Infact, you don't even get to vote who the PM is.
Last edited by Manny on 04 Sep 2007 05:46, edited 1 time in total.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Manny wrote: ROFLMAO.. Riiiiight. Here comes every Tom Dick and Rama to re write the constitution!

:eek: :D
And we need "Tom,Dick" and Manny ??, to show the light.. 8)

Please.. what has been posted is how democracy ~functions.. [this has nothing to with the deal..]. So please stop distorting things to suit your views ...
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Manny wrote: DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

It means, you get to elect you representatives democratically. after that YOU have no say on the day to day decisions until the next election. Kapish? Thats a republic. Infact, you don't even get to vote who the PM is.
Quit making a jackass out of your self..

Hint : Executive, Legislature, Judiciary.

:Apologies OT:
Last edited by Tilak on 04 Sep 2007 05:55, edited 1 time in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Manny wrote:Read my Lips!

INDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a REPUBLIC.

Your way of thinking is well known. Its precisely why there is no Government in this world thats a "Democracy"! :rotfl:

Precisely because, India is a democratic republic., I am asking for a vote by MP's and not a referendum. It is another matter that our system based on the west minister model is uniquely unsuitable for India.

If you would have paid close attention, to what I have said, a vote without party whips, you would have realized, What I am asking for.

I wanted to bring out the fact on how undemocratic our system of governance actually is. Your normal MP cannot even vote based on their own conscience. They have to vote as per the demands of the leaderhip of their party, unless 1/3 of them decide to break from it.

This deal does not need a parliamentary vote, but at the same time, parliament is supreme in our system. So, if a majority of parliamentarians feel the need to speak out, they should be able to but cannot as their free will has been arrested.

All I want was that free will to speak out and then let the chips fall, where they may.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

ShauryaT wrote:
Manny wrote:Read my Lips!

INDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a REPUBLIC.

Your way of thinking is well known. Its precisely why there is no Government in this world thats a "Democracy"! :rotfl:

Precisely because, India is a democratic republic., I am asking for a vote by MP's and not a referendum. It is another matter that our system based on the west minister model is uniquely unsuitable for India.

If you would have paid close attention, to what I have said, a vote without party whips, you would have realized, What I am asking for.

I wanted to bring out the fact on how undemocratic our system of governance actually is. Your normal MP cannot even vote based on their own conscience. They have to vote as per the demands of the leaderhip of their party, unless 1/3 of them decide to break from it.

This deal does not need a parliamentary vote, but at the same time, parliament is supreme in our system. So, if a majority of parliamentarians feel the need to speak out, they should be able to but cannot as their free will has been arrested.

All I want was that free will to speak out and then let the chips fall, where they may.
But the Indian constitution that is already ratified gives the Executive to make treaties with out the vote in the Parliment.

IF you don't like it, work with your representative to change the constitution.

Good luck!

Come to think of it.. I would like to work towards a constitutional amendment to Ban communists and communist sympathizers as criminals!
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

The Dr. Kalam's comments are not really supportive of the PMs deal. He calls it "unique" and then goes on to state that he met with Dr. MMS to let him know that Thorium reactors are important. Hardly a vote of confidence, more of preaching to the unknowing.

I feel it is time move from this endorsing phase.

Chicom? What can one say. Someone has to let them know that we are on the same side of the fence. Why would not India help them secure IOR for them is beyond me. Besides, Mush did them in when he tried to toss the CJustice out of town. Now the one the Chicom relies on most is on his way out it looks like. The others replacing Mush could be more influenced by the "West". Better for Chicom to play along in TSP here on out.

However, do nto believe whatever their politicians say. Not even if it is writing. Deeds count, smallest one should be accounted for. (BTW, love that strategic upgrade with Chicom. Looks like Dragon needs to refill on whatever that causes it to breath fire. What a joke.)

OK KS's comments:
The charge that India's foreign policy is subordinated to the US comes from those who do not have confidence in India's strength and potential
etc. Rangudu had a small post a few pages ago which stated the same without a URL. Which I thought had adequately answered my earlier Q: who in India can stand up and be counted. Worthy answer I would say. I am assuming these comments from KS mean that SD will no longer even think of travel advisories forget issuing one.

Also, I sincerely hope that MMS + INC have other Indian leaders in mind when they talk of "confidence in India's strength", and, not just one other person in the wings. This has to percolate to business and other leaders too.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

rgsrini wrote:If the price for this is to sit tight and not explode a bomb for the next 15 to 25 years, so be it (my opinion).
Wonderfully put (Cheers to your candidness); no H&D here as well, this is one of the important reasons. For me to be with the deal, still. "This time we shall play.." [Give me my fuel guarantees (excl. test) minimum..]

However, I would like the constitution to be amended, to prevent further weakening of GOI's position down the line.. Of course, it it does stem from my lack of trust, in politicians and a little bit of less "spin/lies" please..
Locked