India Nuclear News & Discussion - 4 Sept 2007

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 13:07

sraj wrote:
Anoop: political pressures will be there whether it is private sector or GoI. The key is, since so many problematic clauses in the current arrangements are sought to be wished away based on our increasing ability to withstand political pressures, perhaps we can demonstrate a little bit of this ability today by importing - perfectly legally - non-NSG Uranium under IAEA safeguards (say, for feeding one of the Rawatbhata reactors which is already under IAEA safeguards).

Bala: Has GoI stated at any time that importing non-NSG Uranium is not possible? Because US is putting pressure on some country not to export to India even though it is legal? I thought this GoI believes that the US wants to help us? Also, on imported process control instruments: presumably they were imported legally for all the indigenous PHWRs commissioned so far by NPCIL and so can continue to be imported.
.


These two points alone capture the crux of the matter beautifully. And this is enough to end any bickering amongst us and agree that we use the above points as touchstones moving ahead.

But dont let me get in the way of venting; such a good stress reliever no doubt.

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 » 06 Sep 2007 13:56

Since the YBs are harrasing a fellow EB, I thought it appropriate to post this link about the hydro power potential of India:

http://www.nhpcindia.com/English/Script ... ntial.aspx

INDIA is endowed with economically exploitable and viable hydro potential assessed to be about 84,000 MW at 60% load factor (1,48,701 MW installed capacity). In addition, 6780 MW in terms of installed capacity from Small, Mini, and Micro Hydel schemes have been assessed. Also, 56 sites for pumped storage schemes with an aggregate installed capacity of 94,000 MW have been identified. However, only 19.9% of the potential has been harnessed so far.


The 80% of 156 GW capacity that exists should more than easily compensate for the 20/40 GW of nuclear energy that this deal hopes to bring in. Without the constraints on the bomb programme as well.

This is what I was pointing to some time back as well. That we have not had a debate on what is the best energy mix for India. This government is just shoving down the idea that without this deal, we would fall back to the Nehruvian rate of growth again. :P But data proves them wrong. So, the question comes - why is this government pushing this deal with so many lies?


N^3 the clown prince of the board

How far the mighty have fallen.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 14:04

abhischekcc wrote: So, the question comes - why is this government pushing this deal with so many lies?


Indeed!!

PS> Many thanks :wink:

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 06 Sep 2007 14:08

Sanku wrote:
abhischekcc wrote: So, the question comes - why is this government pushing this deal with so many lies?


Indeed!!

PS> Many thanks :wink:


Sanku,

It would be interesting to hear from you why you think the "government is pushing this deal with so many lies".

Diclaimer: If you've already stated your reasons, please let me know, I'll try to dig it out from the archives.

Cheers!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 06 Sep 2007 14:21

Yes,even I must say that Bush is an absolute pal of India's and this was observed and mentioned by me when he visited us.His "tilt" towards us was and is genuine and we are the good "Injuns",who smoke the peace pipe with him.We aren't the men of eviltude like Saddam and Ahmed-in-a-jacket and those varmits in Bin Laden-land.However,it is his simpleton approach to world issues that terrifies the globe.His brain,Rove,has just abandoned ship making matters acute for the poor beleagured pres.From the waterfall of info about the Bush administration,it appears that Bush (as I posted a few days ago) was not even present when crucial decisions on Iraq were taken! Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rove and the neo-con circle around Bush havebeen inncharge all along,with the Pres.,after a long bike ride too "bushed" to listen to what was being told to him (disbanding the Iraqi army).

What scares the sh*t out of everyone is that this Pres.,from his track record, has to be taken seriously when he talks of destroying Iran and punishing his enemy of the moment.In such a situation,Bush is a catalyst for global chaos and drags into conflicts his closest friends and allies,widening the scale and scope of the conflict and putting his friends at risk.Britain sadly found out to its dismay that Blair's love affair with Bush stoked terrorist fires in the UK itself fromits own citizens.Our own "simpleton" Singh,accompanied by his headless chicken,is like Blair scuttling towards Bush to embrace him in indecent haste,while the rest of the world,like Gordon Brown is putting as much distance between Marshal Dubya and his posse!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 14:22

amit wrote:It would be interesting to hear from you why you think the "government is pushing this deal with so many lies".


For the same reasons Abcc thinks so :P .

I have not said the "lie" word explicitly so far;
however the fact that GoI does not acknowledge the the ball has moved since Dr Singhs statement to the parliament the first time on the issue (this point already beaten to death);
the statement that "nuclear establishment says its a good deal" where as the best they have said is "we can live with it";
For the deal or traitor statements;
lack of openness (they included left only when threatned);
lack of reaching out to political spectrum through JPC, even when the govt. is in a minority;
No discussion on energy mix post 123 deal;
No discussion on future policy towards Nuclear establishment post deal; at least a white paper on the funding for domestic vs. import.
No discussion of geo-political ramifications.
etc etc....

Also in prior posts I and many others have pointed out the rational behind making each of the "allegation" in the list above; so you could either believe me or otherwise please do at least look before calling me names as seems to be the favoriate sport on the board.

I really wish that GoI came out and made statements on these aspects though. Seriously.

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

Ah and remember George Fs statement on MMS and Chin? For me that alone is proof of pudding :lol: quite aware of what GF is and how is he is right on the button (some first hand or close second hand info on him)

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 06 Sep 2007 14:46

Sanku,

First of all I've never called you or anyone else for the matter names! That's not my style. :D

I asked you a rather retorical question because my feeling is (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're more interested in discussing the technical merits or otherwise of 123 without factoring in the overall geo-politcal motive behind the whole exercise. My personal opnion is that's not the way to go. Since we've already covered this ground, let's agree to disagree on this.

As regard the political moves by Congress and BJP as well as Left, I think some senior members like Kgoan and others, who seem to have a feel for these things, have given some pointers to the whole political game that's being played in Delhi. Again we can agree or disagree on the analysis. However, to me it makes perfect sense.

Finally about scientists using a rather cautious "we can live with this deal" rather than dancing with joy on their chairs, well I would interpert it as typical Indian caution. Afterall, the road is only half travelled and a lot will depend on the agreement with the IAEA and the NSG.

The last point is of interest. If India demands and gets full exemption to nuclear trade from NSG then I think you may see the scientists be a little less cautious in their opinons.

And why not? Say US and Russia supplies us with two nuclear reactors and fuel and then due to whatever reason the US suspends the nuclear deal under Hyde and demands we dismantle and send back the entire plant, do you think Russia would do the same? I really don't think so.

Cheers!
Last edited by amit on 06 Sep 2007 14:50, edited 1 time in total.

rkrao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 08 Aug 2007 17:58
Location: Mera bharat mahan

Postby rkrao » 06 Sep 2007 14:47

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT: CHALLENGES AND RESPONSE –*

RV SHAHI, SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF POWER, GOVT. OF INDIA

Enhancing the level of energy consumption, particularly in less developed and developing countries, is a global challenge. 20% of world population living in industrialised countries consume 60% of energy and remaining 80% of population have to manage within 40% of total energy. This has obviously resulted in wide disparities between the standard of living and quality of life of high energy consuming countries on the one hand and those who do not have the opportunities of adequate access to energy on the other. It is precisely for this reason that development of different sources of energy and increase in its consumption has become a priority agenda of all the developing countries.

2. Various countries have adopted their own strategies to provide energy to their people. In the context of electric power, as an important form of energy, the thermal and hydroelectric power on a global basis, have occupied the largest proportion. Within the thermal group, coal based power stations occupy dominant position. However, this varies from country to country. The Gas based combined cycle power stations in number of countries occupy a significant proportion. Similarly, nuclear power stations have also increased and have been adding large amount of capacity to the thermal group. During last 30 years, Hydroelectric power generation has, as a matter of fact, reduced from 21% in 1973 to less than 17% in 2000. During the same period, coal based generation marginally increased from 38% to 39%, gas increased substantially from 12% to 17.4% and nuclear witnessed a very steep rise from 3.3% to 16.9%. Obviously concerted efforts are required to develop Hydroelectric capacities

*PAPER FOR VALEDICTORY SESSION IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LARGE DAMS (ICOLD) AT MONTREAL, 17-20, JUNE, 2003

3. Low Exploitation of Hydro Potential
Inspite of hydroelectric power requiring a clean energy generation process, exploitation of Hydroelectric potential in various countries has been rather on a lower side. While the countries like Canada & Norway have exploited their hydro potentials to the extent of 48% and 58% respectively, Brazil has developed it to the extent of 31%, China and India both only to the extent of 18%.
(MW)
COUNTRY POTENTIAL INSTALLED PERCENTAGE
Norway 47,000 27,360 58
Canada 160,000 65,378 48
Brazil 170,000 52,427 31
China 310,000 56,000 18
India 150,000 27,000 18


4. Power Shortage in India
In India, though over 100,000 MW of capacity has been added in last 50 years, there is a huge gap between the demand and supply of power. While in the last few years it has marginally reduced, the peaking shortage continues to be over 12% to 13% and the average energy shortage at about 8.8%. Indian power system has an installed capacity of 108,207 MW in May 2003, with hydroelectric accounting for 25%.
Installed Capacity in MW (05/2003)
Sector Hydro Thermal Wind Nuclear Total
State 23,085 40,141 65 0 63,291
Private 876 9,419 1805 0 12,100
Central 3049 27,047 0 2720 32,816
Total 27,010 76,607 1,870 2720 1,08,207




5. Declining proportion of Hydro Capacity

In the last 30 years, the proportion of hydroelectric capacity in the Indian power system has considerably reduced. It has dropped from about 46% in 1970 to 40% in 1980, 29% in 1990 and now 25% in 2003. In spite of the Hydroelectric potential, which is now estimated to be of the order of 150,000 MW, the exploitation has been of the order of 27,000 MW. Some of the important reasons for decline in the Hydroelectric proportion in the total capacity over the last 30 years are as follows:

a) Indian power supply industry has always experienced the situation of shortages both in energy and peaking requirements. To tide over the shortage in shortest possible time, more dependence was placed on sources of power generation with shorter gestation period. Obviously this short-term approach rather than a long-term perspective led to this problem.
b) With abundant coal reserves in the country, large capacity additions through coal based pithead power stations during the eighties and nineties increased the thermal proportion.
c) Emergence of gas based combined cycle power stations based on indigenous natural gas with gestation period of 2-2 ½ years also received priority in response to the anxiety to create capacity addition in shortest possible time.
d) Nuclear power stations have also emerged as reliable modes of thermal generation.
e) In spite of best efforts at the stage of planning and formulating projects in the hydro segment, a number of large projects got into long gestation period of construction on account of various reasons, namely environmental issues, rehabilitation & resettlement (R&R) problems, gap between investigations and field realities, etc. We do have a number of successful stories on the hydroelectric projects but we also have large projects which have taken several years to get completed.
6. Thrust on Hydro Power
In the recent years, the Govt. of India has committed quantum jump, in the financial allocation and also by way of other supports so that Hydroelectric projects not only get right priorities but also contribute in an increased way to the future capacity addition programmes of the country. Accordingly, in the 10th Five-Year Plan (year 2002-2007), the target for hydroelectric capacity has been placed 14,393 MW, which is more than the total installed capacity (13,666 MW) created in the last 20 years. The thrust on hydroelectric development is based on the following considerations:
a) Hydroelectric involves a clean process of power generation. Once the projects are constructed, there is no pollution ramification unlike many other power generation technologies and processes.
b) Since it does not suffer from the limitation of inflation on account of fuel consumption, in the long run, it is the most cost-effective option for power supply. In Indian context, where more than 45% of Indian population has yet to have access to electricity at an affordable price, this is an important consideration.
c) Indian power supply system has a peculiar limitation of huge variation between peak and off peak requirements. Management of peak load in an effective manner could be conveniently handled through availability of hydroelectric support. The system at present does suffer from large frequency variations. Better hydro support could address this problem better.
d) Locations of Hydroelectric projects in India are also in areas which need substantial support for their economic development. These areas are North-east, Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh & Jammu & Kashmir where more than 80% of potential exists. Developing projects in these areas will spur economic activities and will lead to overall economic development.
e) In an integrated Hydroelectric project – there are many such projects – the schemes involve not only supply of electricity but also provision of drinking water and irrigation. These are important issues in many parts of India. Hydroelectric projects, in many cases, do have the ability to mitigate these problems.
f) Flood control is also an issue and quite often a challenge. Integrated hydroelectric projects could adequately address this concern.

7. Govt. of India Initiative on Hydro Power Development:

The main features of the Government of India policy on hydro power development are as follows:
• Additional budgetary financial support for ongoing and new hydro projects under Central Public Sector Undertakings.
• Basin-wise development of hydro potential – comprehensive Ranking studies for 399 schemes.
• Advance action for capacity addition – 10 year ahead of execution
• Emphasis on quality of survey & investigations
• Resolution of inter-state issues on sharing of water and power.
• Renovation, Modernization & Uprating of existing hydro stations
• Promoting small and mini hydel projects – 25 MW and below now fall into category of “non conventionalâ€

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 15:07

amit wrote:Sanku,

First of all I've never called you or anyone else for the matter names! That's not my style. :D

I asked you a rather retorical question because my feeling is (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're more interested in discussing the technical merits or otherwise of 123 without factoring in the overall geo-politcal motive behind the whole exercise. !


Correct and I think my answer validates your opinion further and you know why I am in favor of one step at a time. Secondly with due respects I disagree that Sci Com is quite only due to the Indian timidness; there are many retired Sci Com types who would be singing in the press and we would know if Sci Com was happy. Anyway the point is that the Govt. contention is not supported by its own people. Govt says Sci Com is happy; they can easily issue a whip to make AK say that. AK is quite despite GoIs contention. NRao and others have already substantially talked of the split in GoI/Sci Com and the reasons thereof.

Last point w.r.t to KGoans statement etc.
I believe a lot of unnecessary discussion is happening on various hypothical scenarios; where as the simple thing to do is to call a spade a spade

I know you will disagree but ponder and think: rather than justify this mess one way or the other; isnt it simpler to just say:: Its a mess and it stinks and walk away?

That is my summary and I hope you will think on that a while with a open mind. (One of the few people who I think still posses both attributes: i.e. mind and open :lol: )

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 06 Sep 2007 15:15

Sanku wrote:
I know you will disagree but ponder and think: rather than justify this mess one way or the other; isnt it simpler to just say:: Its a mess and it stinks and walk away?


Sanku,

Depends on whether one thinks its a mess or not. I don't think it started out as a mess, but the politicians are trying damn hard to make it into a mess. Let's see how it pans out.

And another point, which I think is the most important one.

In high stakes international diplomacy, simply walking away is not an option. There are costs involved in terms of India's credibility and standing.

I think those like you who are advocating walking away at this 11th hour when the deal is all but warped up haven't factored that in at all.

Cheers!

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 » 06 Sep 2007 15:22

Amit, walking away at this juncture will have both positive and negative consequences. Just like not walking away. :)

I have already given the Enron example. That project was shoved down out throats by the US/Clinton govt with the threat that if we don;t accept it, India will not receive any FDI. So we accepted it then, and rejected it later. :D

But was there any fall in FDI levels after we rejected Enron's DPC project? None, in fact FDI levels reached record levels after the rejection, not before it. There was muted praise in the international media - saying that the rejection shows India will take a bad deal

It's just like havaldar MMS trying to scare us with 'missing the bus'. Nothing but scare tactics.

Hey, if you ask me, I'd rather miss the bus. I prefer a Ferrari. :D

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 15:27

amit wrote:Depends on whether one thinks its a mess or not. I don't think it started out as a mess, but the politicians are trying damn hard to make it into a mess. Let's see how it pans out.

In high stakes international diplomacy, simply walking away is not an option. There are costs involved in terms of India's credibility and standing.


Ah cause and effect disagreement here; I think it is a mess and the political mess is a reflection of the same :D and not the other way around. Do you see what I mean?

Secondly; I of course dont mean walking out in terms of "oh sorry bye"; walking out means reengaging on different terms. I dont mean to say that I support the Yahoos here who claim a deal can be signed on a whim and broken equally easily however there are always subtle ways; like US withdrawing from FMCT at the same time taking lead in a better more "easily" adminstrable FMCT with a ostenable purpose of making things better.

In fact as NRao has said; the Govt can achieve this if it wants in many ways; one way will be to ask for a full NWS status from IAEA. If we get it great; other wise continue the chai biscuit. Of course pass a law in India which the negotiators can show the IAEA panel to say; sorree domestic law says that we are NWS onlee so that must be the deal. :lol:

See the beauty of the above? If GoI does that; In one shot BJP, Left and all EBs like me will shut up and lose all their legs; Hyde act and 123 also will be trash paper.

However that will happen only IFF GoI has the political will; and so far it seems that its will power is direceted towards internal opposition to get US the 123 deal GB needs rather than use it will power to get the India the nuke deal INDIA needs.

See what I am saying; there? Many ways to solve the mess if the heart is in the right place.

PS>> And of course as Abcc says; better to walk out of a bad relationship before the marriage as friends rather than marry and fight later ending possibly in a divorce 8)

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 » 06 Sep 2007 15:30

Sanku wrote:Many ways to solve the mess if the heart is in the right place.


If onlee the YBs could understand that. :twisted:

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 06 Sep 2007 15:45

[quote="NRao"]IAEA talks may be held in October

[quote]
AEC chief to seek exemption from NSG curbs

[b]“We will demand an unconditional and total exemption from all the guidelines prescribed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group during our talks with them. We will not allow any preconditions or post-conditions for getting nuclear reactors and technology from NSG countries,â€

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3332
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Postby rsingh » 06 Sep 2007 15:52

India's nuclear deal better than China's: Mansingh


As the opposition and leftist allies of the government continue to attack India's civil nuclear pact with the US, former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh has said the deal is better than what China has got and a failure to push it through before early next year will "hurt" national interests.

Mansingh also sought to allay anxieties about the contentious Hyde Act, saying that the government of India is only bound by the 123 agreement, which will be America's supreme law after it is passed by the US Congress and will govern nuclear commerce between the two countries.

Saying that the deal was critical for India's energy and high-technology needs, Mansingh said a failure to push this deal would lead to the "gradual shutdown of our civilian nuclear facilities."

"Our nuclear reactors are running at below 60 per cent capacity due to the shortage of the fuel. The deal is critical for India's energy sector," Mansingh, a former ambassador in Washington, told IANS in an interview.

"If the deal doesn't go through, it will hurt us," he said, adding that the decades-old technology denial regime has impaired India's technological advance.

Clearing the air in the controversy surrounding the Hyde Act, Mansingh said: "If there is a clash between a national law and an international treaty, the international or inter-governmental treaty will be accepted as the supreme law of the land."

"Once the 123 agreement is passed by the US Congress, it supersedes the Hyde Act and becomes the law of the land," he added.

"Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and licence requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," says clause 1 of Article 2 of the 123 agreement.

The Left parties and the chief opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have seized upon this clause to argue that the Hyde Act, which contains many objectionable portions like the termination of civilian nuclear cooperation with India in the event of the latter testing a nuclear device, impinges upon India's sovereignty and independence of foreign policy.

The 123 agreement contains multi-layered safeguards on fuel supply and consideration of circumstances preceding a nuclear test by India, Mansingh said.

"Political consensus which has all along characterised India's foreign policy is sadly breaking down," said Mansingh, whose tenure as New Delhi's envoy in Washington saw a dramatic improvement in India-US relations.

Mansingh said he was hopeful that the government and the Left parties will be able to resolve differences in time so that next steps in implementing the nuclear deal - India's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group - are completed before the end of the year and before election fever grips the US.

"As we inch closer to the end of the year, anxiety will start heightening up. Once the US gets into election mode in early January next year, the nuclear deal will start getting diminished attention from Congress and the White House," he said.

Saying that the 123 agreement, which re-opens doors of global nuclear commerce for India after nearly three decades, is "one of the best agreements we have managed" and New Delhi, the veteran diplomat underlined that India has got a better 123 agreement than China.
(How?)
"The Americans haven't conceded so much to any other country," he said.

"China's 123 agreement with the US requires all exports of nuclear technology and materials to be subject to the UN rules and regulations. In China's case, its 123 agreement requires the US president to certify about China's non-proliferation record before exports of nuclear technology takes place. In India's case, there are no such conditions."

"China has accepted American inspections of its safeguarded nuclear facilities. We have not. China has no fuel supply assurances from the US. We have an elaborate layer of safeguards for the uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel," he said.

"Most importantly, the US has granted India in-principle right to reprocess spent fuel. China has not been given reprocessing right."

"People should not forget India is a partner of the US and not an ally. When India was economically and militarily weak, we still stood up and criticised the Americans on the Vietnam issue he said," said Mansingh while countering anxieties about the 123 agreement impinging on India's independent foreign policy.

"Why should India succumb now? We are economically stronger - Indians are acquiring companies abroad. That sense of independence is in our DNA," he said.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 06 Sep 2007 15:58

abhischekcc wrote:Amit, walking away at this juncture will have both positive and negative consequences. Just like not walking away. :)

I have already given the Enron example. That project was shoved down out throats by the US/Clinton govt with the threat that if we don;t accept it, India will not receive any FDI. So we accepted it then, and rejected it later. :D

But was there any fall in FDI levels after we rejected Enron's DPC project? None, in fact FDI levels reached record levels after the rejection, not before it. There was muted praise in the international media - saying that the rejection shows India will take a bad deal

It's just like havaldar MMS trying to scare us with 'missing the bus'. Nothing but scare tactics.

Hey, if you ask me, I'd rather miss the bus. I prefer a Ferrari. :D


Abhi,

I don't think Enron is a very good example. India was much more weaker then with the balance of payments crisis still not resolved fully and Enron was our first big ticket foreign investment.

And it was a single project which the US government arms twisted us to take on. This deal is about a sesmic shift in both US-India relations as well as the first unravelling of NPT and its impetus has come not from us but the orginally sinner, that is the US.

Also Enron did not take off because with every change of state government the company was being asked to pay a fresh bribe? Remember that?

If you still compare Enron with the Nooklear deal well then I can only do this: :lol:

Coming back to Enron, I think India can thank its stars that Enron tanked due to top management corruption, otherwise they were getting ready to raise such a stink that India would have had to pay millions in compensation or no major power utility would have invested in India.

I think you need to study Enron saga a bit more my friend. :D

Cheers!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 16:01

Amit; I have seen that report before; and yes what you are saying would have been more belieavble if

1) We had not heard and seen the split in GoI and Sci Com with pressure on Sci Com to relent. Its not Sci Coms job to play the bad cop for GoI good cop in negotiations.
2) Seen AK go from "all or nothing" to "well okay"
3) Seen the other reports posted by Tilak which indicated that both GOTUS was not backing Indian POV at IAEA and letting them fend for themselves; in this situation we would have expected noises from GoI and not Sci Com as to how US is supposed to back us up.
4) In the end GoI can order AK to make the deal on certain terms; AK will not have a choice for all the noises he makes; short of a dramatic public resignation. The political decisions are not AKs to make.
5) GoI does not seem to have strengthened AKs negotiation position with public statements; papers; laws etc. Imagine AK going in with an act of parliament declaring ourselves to be a NWS backing him.
6) The political mess festers and is not sorted out with effects on the IAEA process. The nation does not have one voice when our team is at IAEA; bad sign.

Given the above; pardon me if I dont hold my breath for a positive resolution at IAEA.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 16:07

amit wrote:And it was a single project which the US government arms twisted us to take on. This deal is about a sesmic shift in both US-India relations as well as the first unravelling of NPT and its impetus has come not from us but the orginally sinner, that is the US.


Again this is more like an article of faith still; what are the intentions of US? From all available material -- Hyde act.

Given that I do not see if we can make the above claim a touchstone to guide us. (there are many other touch stones we can use first to see if this indeed is the case; for example import of material from non NSG country with US winking)

Secondly Enron again calls for a cause effect debate -- We know that Enron tanked because it was an exteremly greedy and corrupt pratice; so was the Dhabol deal a shamble because a greedy MNC was sweet talking GoMaha; or was GoMaha responsible for Dhabol by corrupting Enron?
Deep philosphical question.

(PS> Dhabol is but an indicator of possiblities; not a template of certainities; never the less a straw in wind which should be noted.)

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 » 06 Sep 2007 16:08

Actually, you need to understand that I am not talking about the collapse of DPC/Enron.

I am taking of the similar environment of 'inevitability' that was constructed around that project, and the one beinf constructed around the nuclear deal.

Mojo of the deal :) Geddit.


So, don't tell me what the Enron deal was about. I have enough info on who/how/what that will naver make the pages of media.


----------
Oh. BTW, the Enron saga did kill quite a few big ticket power projects.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 06 Sep 2007 16:10

Sanku wrote:Amit; I have seen that report before; and yes what you are saying would have been more belieavble if
>
>
>
>
Given the above; pardon me if I dont hold my breath for a positive resolution at IAEA.


Sanku,

So the great AK, who's so admired (shall I say was?) on BRF turns out to be a weak kneed civil servant who's ape shit scared of losing his job?

And he says one thing to one audience and then another thing to another audience - that is he shifts his stance as the situation demands?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

PS: I was not speculating on the likely out come in IAEA, I was just pointing out what the pointman for India in the IAEA negotiations has said in public about what India's stand will be at the talks.

Cheers!

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 06 Sep 2007 16:13

Abhi, Sanku,

I throw up my hands! :lol: :lol:

This kind of argument can go on and on till the cows come home!

Cheers!

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 » 06 Sep 2007 16:16

amit wrote:This deal is about a sesmic shift in both US-India relations as well as the first unravelling of NPT


Well, you are a newbie!

This deal is an extension, not an unravelling of the NPT. The NPT started unravelling when Dewe Gowda told Arundhati Ghosh to torpedo the talks in Geneva.

This deal ressurects that odious text.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 16:23

amit wrote:So the great AK, who's so admired (shall I say was?) on BRF turns out to be a weak kneed civil servant who's ape shit scared of losing his job?


Sorry Amit that is not what I am saying; you are putting a spin on my words or if you prefer words in my mouth. All I am saying that even the great AK is at the end of the day human; and yes just a civil servant. It is important to remember where the final authority vests. We must not look at AK as the final safegaurd or scapegoat.

And he says one thing to one audience and then another thing to another audience - that is he shifts his stance as the situation demands?


No not my statement at all; however he may be "FORCED" to change his position as time passes; again remember cause and effect here.

PS: I was not speculating on the likely out come in IAEA, I was just pointing out what the pointman for India in the IAEA negotiations has said in public about what India's stand will be at the talks.!


Yes but if public statements were so much a indicator of what was coming then what about other statements by AK and MMS etc in the past :wink:

I am aware of the public statements; what I want to know is where the ball finally ends and where it is currently heading.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 16:26

amit wrote:This kind of argument can go on and on till the cows come home!
!


Actually as we speak; from where I am in India; at this time; it is Godhuli bela and I CAN see the cows come home. :wink:

PS> Just in case I ended up being too subtle : That statement was overloaded!!

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 » 06 Sep 2007 16:31

amit wrote:Abhi, Sanku,

I throw up my hands! :lol: :lol:

This kind of argument can go on and on till the cows come home!

Cheers!


Now, if onlee we could get MMS to do the same. :twisted:


-------------
Just for the record. I do not consider the Sci Com as weak kneed or traitors or confuzed. These are epithets better used for politicians. :P

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 06 Sep 2007 16:37

This kind of argument can go on and on till the cows come home!


Let me clear up this misconception, Amitji. The COWS ARE HOME!

Just smell all the Go-Pu around! :P

P.S. I note that SriSanku, though he read that question, has still not bothered to do what he wanted everyone else to do:

Compare the J18 and the 123


Superstitionen Uber Facten!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 16:44

enqyoob wrote:
Compare the J18 and the 123


Superstitionen Uber Facten!


Do I have to transfer the knowledge of what I am saying to you through brain waves? Or like Idev; copy pasting from archives is what it takes to shut up this irritating whine of yours? Please read.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 06 Sep 2007 18:17

So the great AK, who's so admired (shall I say was?) on BRF turns out to be a weak kneed civil servant who's ape shit scared of losing his job?

And he says one thing to one audience and then another thing to another audience - that is he shifts his stance as the situation demands?


No one has been as consistent as him (outside of Kalamji I suspect).

IMHO he foresaw much of these happening years prior to J18. Which is why I think he was able to checkmate Burns and SD so often.

(MMS is the one known for his knocked knees - even prior to becoming the PM.)

123 is as good as it gets because of AK, and now he is schooling Saranji on how to tackle the NSG, while taking on IAEA - for years prior to J18 if I may add!! Saran, the one that goofed up the 123 in the first place (I won't add the Hyde Act because it is internal to the US, although Saran was marshaling support for it).

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Postby Manny » 06 Sep 2007 18:33

Here is the big picture on this whole 123 deal we need to keep in mind

Who benefits the most with India being backward, with a large %age of poor people?

Its the lefties and communists. That is their base.

Who is never to have known success in the history of mankind let alone in their own lives?

Its the lefties and communists.

Who is the humanitarian in the abstract but wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in real life?

Its the lefties and communists.

Who never thinks of wealth creation for India and believe wealth creation is bad?

Its the lefties and communists.

Who is sympathetic to the pakies and the Chinks?

Its the lefties and communists.

Who is it that has never run a business of their own and created jobs for others?

Its the lefties and communists.

So, do we really care what the lefties and communists think or have to say on the 123 or anything else for that matter?

I don't think so. They like Islamists are to be treated with extreme prejudice.
Last edited by Manny on 06 Sep 2007 18:40, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 06 Sep 2007 18:39

Who benefits the most with India being backward, with a large %age of poor people?


This gets into poli-eco-socio areas. But, you seem to talking of rural poor, while among the urban poor there are plenty among the rich and middle class (MC) that benefit. MC will not have "servants", for instance, without such poor.

It is not an easy question to respond to and cannot be answered in a short essay.

BTW, Manny, that dynamics exists in the US too. Else the US should have got over this economic class separation long back.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1663
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 18:55

Sanku wrote:Do I have to transfer the knowledge of what I am saying to you through brain waves? Or like Idev; copy pasting from archives is what it takes to shut up this irritating whine of yours? Please read.


Dear sanku,

Unfortunately, you appear incapable of even doing correct copy-pasting :P

Let me paste below the exchanges between Arun_S and me which you have partially copypasted and drawn wrong conclusions from. Now whether these wrong conclusions were because:

You are incapable of understanding simple english

OR

you understood the exchange between Arun_S and me but choose to wrongly interpret them, which would make you a troll with clearly no intention of debating anything honestly is something only you know.

So let me educate you yet again:


Arun_S
Webmaster - Missiles/Space Site


Joined: 14 Jun 2000
Posts: 3877
Location: KhyberDurra
Posted: 29 Jul 2007 12:51 am Post subject:

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


Arun_S wrote:

220MWe PHWR used in Pu breeding mode & 85% power generation capacity and adequate fuel loader capacity will generate 181Kg/Yr WgPu, however if there is not enough fuel loader capacity and if it is operated in conventional high burn mode the spent fuel will have only 98 Kg RgPu (Reactor grade Pu).

Corresponding figured for 540MWe PHWR are 447Kg WgPu/yr and 227Kg RgPu/yr.

Of course we do not know FBR output rate. They are conservatively starting with charactering with Mox fuel, followed by Carbide fuel and eventually metallic fuel.

ldev response quoted by sanku in his last post to ldev
Thanks Arun_S. Your figures seem to indicate that effectively it means that if nothing catastrophic happens globally in the next 5-8 years, the rate of availability of driver fuel domestically will be adequate to support a normal commissioning program of AHWRs. Ofcourse it will not be adequate to add 100,000MW of generating capacity per year, but it will supplement quite nicely the coal/thermal capacities being added on.

Arun_S responds that he has changed the original figures on which ldev has based the above response
Pls note that I have corrected the Pu consumption rate for 300MWe AHWR in my post.


ldev
BRFite


Joined: 06 Nov 2002
Posts: 1350

Posted: 29 Jul 2007 04:01 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arun_S gives the new Pu consumption numbers for each 300MWe AHWR
Arun_S wrote:

Pls note that I have corrected the Pu consumption rate for 300MWe AHWR in my post............the 300MWe AHWR will use 230Kg/yr fresh Pu driver.

ldev responds as to why India needs the 123 agreement in the light of the correct AHWR Pu consumption numbers. sanku does not read/chooses not to read ldev's final conclusion
Uh-huh. That is more like it. That is why India wanted this deal. Thanks


If you have finally understood what that exchange was all about, you will realize that in the end the conclusion that I came to was that in the light of the correct and accurate AHWR Pu consumption numbers, India needs this deal.

You ofcourse in your haste and hurry to find any scrap of information to support your superstition, drew the wrong conclusion.

sanku bhai, at least learn to copy paste correctly. If you cannot even copy paste correctly, dont you think that higher order issues such as a nuclear debate may well be beyond your capabilities :P
Last edited by ldev on 06 Sep 2007 19:22, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby vsudhir » 06 Sep 2007 19:08

N-deal: Karat asks BJP to join Left (TOI)

ONGOLE (AP): Holding that the agreement to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal was not acceptable to the majority in Parliament, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat on Thursday asked the BJP to join all others in telling the Government not to proceed with it.

"The question will boil down to whether the Parliament can ratify this agreement. If we take that position, there is no point in asking for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) or a vote," Karat, who is leading a Left procession against joint naval exercises involving the US in the Bay of Bengal, told a television channel.

Disagreeing with the BJP demand for a JPC, he said: "I think the question is political. The agreement is not acceptable to the majority in Parliament. We can all tell the Government, don't proceed (with the deal). And I don't see why the BJP cannot take that position".

Karat felt Parliament should discuss the nuclear issue and BJP should voice its views there.

"Let the country know whether this government has any support in Parliament on the nuclear deal. That will be the best way to make sure that this deal is not proceeded with. How can a government go against the majority in Parliament?

In Nellore, the CPM leader questioned Government's nod for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal involving the US.

He said "imperialists" were being invited to come to India and bring their navies here, like the Walmart, which would like to run shops here, retail trade would destroy the livelihood of our small shopkeepers".


Arsol wants to eat the cake and have it too.

Wants the hated, vile, vicious communal forces to support the commie farces in stopping India's progress for nothing in return.

Chweet, eh?

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 » 06 Sep 2007 19:11

Manny wrote:Here is the big picture on this whole 123 deal we need to keep in mind

Who benefits the most with India being backward, with a large %age of poor people?

Its the lefties and communists. That is their base.
Its the lefties and communists.
Its the lefties and communists.
Its the lefties and communists.
Its the lefties and communists.
Its the lefties and communists.


Big picture, you say.

It looks more like tunnel vision to me. :)

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 06 Sep 2007 19:14

Do I have to transfer the knowledge of what I am saying to you through brain waves? Or like Idev; copy pasting from archives is what it takes to shut up this irritating whine of yours? Please read.


O Mighty One! No, I'm afraid I don't have DivyaDrishti, so not much capability to get any brain waves. Besides, waves might cause resonance inside my empty skull...

It would be very simple to actually do an honest, thorough, point-by-point comparison of J18 and 123, and please point me to where you have done that.

May the fragrance of a thousand camels flood your posts with wisdom, and the light of the wisdom from your thousand posts illuminate the musharrafs of those camels, Inshallah! 8)

(oops! Does something seems a little out of whack with that blessing?) :eek:

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 » 06 Sep 2007 19:16

vsudhir wrote:N-deal: Karat asks BJP to join Left (TOI)


He said "imperialists" were being invited to come to India and bring their navies here, like the Walmart, which would like to run shops here, retail trade would destroy the livelihood of our small shopkeepers".



Wasn't it his own wifey who was collaborating with the Imperialist Coca Cola and Pepsico to malign Swami Ramdev?

I wonder why he doesn't say anything to her? Probably thinks of the Bengali saying - Bookhe Chodhe Kautha Koye, Shei Kautha Ki Mithaa Hoye?

Meaning - If the beloved lies on your chest and says something, can you ever deny that as false? :P

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 06 Sep 2007 19:22

sanku bhai: congrats on your MoEB citation.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1663
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 19:29

SaiK wrote:sanku bhai: congrats on your MoEB citation.


Is that "Mother of all EBs" like in Saddam's "Mother of all Battles". :lol:

I think sanku has done all EBs and wannabe EBs proud with his citation.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 06 Sep 2007 19:35

or was GoMaha responsible for Dhabol by corrupting Enron?


What was that song?
I have this Bisssssssphooool easy feeeeeeling...

.... she cyaint take you anyplace you don't already wanna go..!


I don't think ENRON needed any corrupting, even from such super-Gurus on the subject of corruption as the Maharashtra govt.

Remember.. ENRON unronned when a determined and VERY brave California public servant (a wimmens that too) kept digging until she figured out exactly how they were causing the rolling blackouts and extorting money from Californians. I remember her comment when the monster finally blew up, something to the effect of "AllahoAkbar!"

In the 1990s, when the ENRON deal was first being talked about, everyone could see plainly that it was a ripoff - guaranteeing ROI for the phoren investor in DOLLARS, with IMPORTED NAPHTA as fuel, at a time when the rupee was plunging and imported oil was going up in price.

But there was no BRF where the deal could be analyzed, and anyway the CPI(M) (Inquilab Zindabad!) was not in the Govt., and the "NDA" were on both sides of the deal, and Cong(I) had its hands fully in the baksheesh jar.

Yes, the lessons of ENRON should be carefully studied and remembered. One of them is to become free of imported oil for electricity generation, if nothing else.

Rudranath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 19 Aug 2007 15:53

Postby Rudranath » 06 Sep 2007 19:51

Target: caging the dragon
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. 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.
Subrahmanyam is a leading strategic analyst.

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 » 06 Sep 2007 19:55

Can some of the YBs clearly state exactly what are the technologies which will become (theoritically) available to us, IF this deal actually goes through?

Loggin off for today....


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests