India Nuclear News & Discussion - 4 Sept 2007

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

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Inquilab Zindabad! I have cn the error of my Capitalist Running Dog and Camp Follower ways, and am trying to repent onlee. Henceforth, I quote only AUTHORITATIVE, UNBIASED sources onlee.

DISCOVERING NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR JUSTIFYING A BAD DEAL

By Comrade Academician Pee-Pee. Member of Peepills Poliburo.

[quote] WE are having a discussion in the country on the importance of nuclear energy to our energy basket only in the context of the India-US nuclear deal. The government and the prime minister have gone into an overdrive in order to sell the India-US nuclear deal, stressing on its importance for India’s energy security. If indeed nuclear energy were so important to India’s future, why is it that no serious techno-economic study has ever been presented impressing upon us the vital importance of nuclear energy?

(Echoes of: "Why has no serious study been done of SSC b4 undertaking project? Ideals for "serious study": Ayodhya Case, Idukki project, Narmada Project)


Currently, nuclear energy stands at 4,120 MW, which is a little less than 3 per cent of our installed capacity of power plants.
(Without the Comrades' obstructionist policies, it would have been less than 1% because we would have many more hydroelectric plants)

A part of the reason has been the nuclear isolation we have faced and therefore the much slower development of our program. However, this is only a part of the reason. The other part is the techno-economics of nuclear power and its relatively high cost.

The key issue is what is the total amount of power that can be added using the nuclear route and what will be its cost? We shall deal with the techno-economics of nuclear power later, but let us take up first the possible proportion of nuclear energy, both in terms of its contribution to electricity generation and as a proportion of the primary energy basket.

QUANTUM & COST OF NUCLEAR POWER

If we assume that we need to add about 100,000 MW in the next 10 years, as the ministry of power is asserting, what is the best-case scenario for nuclear power? According to the Planning Commission’s study (Integrated Energy Policy, 2006, Planning Commission), taking the most optimistic scenario, it is 15,000 MW by 2015 and 29,000 MW by 2021 (see Table 1). These targets include 8,000 MW of imported reactors. Even though these targets have already been admitted as quite ambitious by the Planning Commission (Planning Commission calls it the Optimistic Scenario), let us assume for the sake of argument, that they can be met. Even then, nuclear energy will only add up to about 7 per cent of our total installed capacity. And if we take the even more ambitious figures that the government is now bandying about – 40,000 MW by 2020 – this will still be less than 9 per cent of our total installed capacity. Figures such as 40,000 MW by 2020 have no relation to the actual capabilities on the ground, or the need for huge amounts of capital for such a program, or the cost of such power if these plants are set up. However, even by these “optimisticâ€
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

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.
Russia has long given up any hopes of a global communist centered, opposition to the west for the sake of opposing policy, a long time back. The only thing the Russians are interested in is $$ and to retain some influence in its backyard. They do not want US to tell them, what to do, but they do not seek to oppose the US, if it is not in their interests.

On this deal, Russia is probably a beneficiary of this deal and hence they support it. Nothing less, nothing more.
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.
Someone, should let us know, what happens to these signing statements on Jan 20, 2009. Also, what exactly is non-binding is anyone's guess, for there is no, such non-binding provisions, in the act itself.
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.
The act governs the agreement. So, wherever there is room for interpretation in the 123, it is the Hyde act that will be used to take the US position, to its logical conclusions. What part of this is unclear?

Congress, will approve a 123 as understood by itself and represented by the administration. The last heard from Burns is, in their view, 123 fully complies with Hyde. So, this idea that 123 is somehow, circumventing or superceding Hyde is stretching it.
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.
Funny, for it is 123 that demands the governance of 123 as per national and not international laws.

I do not know enough about conflict situations between international agreements and domestic US laws and the position of the SC but, in the instance of 123 the governance of the same is as per national laws, of its respective countries.

Also, it is highly presumptuous to say, what the SC of the US would do in the event, of a conflict between international and national laws. We surely cannot base an agreement, based on that understanding.
Misconceptions about the 123 deal are rooted in the lack of understanding of US constitutional practices and of conventional international systems.
The biggest misconception of all is that somehow, we are dealing only with the current administration and not with the US government as a whole.
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.
China indeed has done all these things through it satellite TSP, and so has the US.
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.
There is a lesson to learn from China, here. Even China is denied high tech defense equipment yet, they have managed to evolve. Investing, reforming, trading and stealing. It has managed to evolve, without limiting itself in strategic matters and without compromising any of their core interests, including its claims on contested land, backed by the United States. It has learnt to create a fine balance, which suits its national interests as China evolves.
It is unrealistic to expect a developing nation to become an advanced nation on its own.
This pretty much sums up KS views and concerns – and dare I say, shows his level of confidence in the new India. KS cannot honestly make this statement, with the China experience, next door. Nobody, set out to make China a developed nation. Yes, they took advantage of global situations. The last time china was in bed with a super power, they got the nuclear and defense capabilities. But, the economic miracle, that is, China of today is largely due to its own policies, to take themselves forward.

The way forward is not to depend on some external power to make you developed but to pursue internal and external policies that are in synch with your nation’s aspirations.

Why are so many of the deal proponents, making this agreement, such a high stakes make or break thing, for India?
China is building around 31 nuclear reactors, accepting conditionalities that India would not accept.
Like what? Sraj has already posted the China Australia agreement.
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.
Can India do the same, by tapping its Hydro resources, in the short term? This issue of climate change costs is anyways in the future and a little speculative on how the international scene will evolve and what will be its likely impacts.

How much time till the total carbon emissions of the past 100 years of the US or EU, equal that of India. Hold on green folks – I am not saying, we do the same. All I am saying is that the US/EU have a lot more to answer for, before asking questions and making demands on India.
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.
I have no particular disagreement with the idea that, we should have a strategic relationship with the US. A benefit of which, maybe to balance China in some future scenario. However, this has to be at acceptable costs. Costs in line with our aspirations.

Arun_S, Ramana: I respect both of your views and both of you have appreciated KS’s article. On Pakistan, the actions on the ground, since 9/11, still support the same old theory of the US to be short sighted and pursue its own cold interests, to the exclusion of others. We cannot surely get a veto on US actions, by being sweet alone. The bloody turds have gifted over $10 billion to Mush, since 9/11. TIA for the gyan.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Shaurya_T wrote: Funny, for it is 123 that demands the governance of 123 as per national and not international laws.
Which part of 123 states "not international laws". The 123 is very clear: it says all national, international laws. Article 2 is only one that refers to national laws (i.e. hyde). Article 16 only references international laws and this one is about "Force and Duration" in legal parlance.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

bala wrote:
Shaurya_T wrote: Funny, for it is 123 that demands the governance of 123 as per national and not international laws.
Which part of 123 states "not international laws". The 123 is very clear: it says all national, international laws. Article 2 is only one that refers to national laws (i.e. hyde). Article 16 only references international laws and this one is about "Force and Duration" in legal parlance.
Yes, Bala - You are right. Silly me, no part of the agreement says "not international laws".

It is only the the most important article - scope of cooperation, which says:
1. The Parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Let us keep this simple. If International laws are not mentioned then those laws, if any, are not what will govern the implementation of this agreement. Only the specfied ones do, so that I may not cite my tribal laws of Shikarpur, to goven this agreement.

Article 16 - says the "principles of international laws" and not those laws, if any, by themselves. Huge difference.

Another thing, what is in one article cannot be overridden by the other. that is usually a recipe for bad practices, in contract law. The 123 is quite clear, on what governs its implementation, right after the definitions.

There is no clause, unlike China, which specifically denies the use of national laws as reasons, for non performance.

so, with all due respect, the US has ensured the primacy of national laws in the governance of this agreement.

Added: Article 16 also says this agreement shall be implemented in good faith along with principles of international law - now, if I someone starts defending the good faith of the US, they will be in trouble, real fast.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

But Shaurya_Tji ...

Article 2 has this very important clause concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and peaceful purposes is well defined in 123 for what it exactly means. There is no reference to strategic weapons and in fact specifically precludes it for both the US and India. So any national law invoked has to be in the scope/concerning peaceful purposes. So, if I am lawyer, I would argue that if say India exploded nuclear weapon, then Hyde cannot be invoked from 123 perspective. (What the US President does is not legally bound by 123 and is out of scope). The language of 123 does not permit scope creep it is precise and exacting and Hyde's clauses on peaceful purposes are the only ones that matter.
Shaurya_T wrote:There is no clause, unlike China, which specifically denies the use of national laws as reasons, for non performance.
Ah.. but this 123 clause of China states Principle of International law which precludes invocation of national laws for non-performance. India can cite the principle of international law (if arguments persist then cite China 123 doc signed by the US) as the same basis for non-performance.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

bala wrote:But Shaurya_Tji ...

Article 2 has this very important clause concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and peaceful purposes is well defined in 123 for what it exactly means. There is no reference to strategic weapons. So any national law invoked has to be in the scope/concerning peaceful purposes. So, if I am lawyer, I would argue that if say India exploded nuclear weapon, then Hyde cannot be invoked from 123 perspective. (What the US President does is not legally bound by 123 and is out of scope). The language of 123 does not permit scope creep it is precise and exacting and Hyde's clauses on peaceful purposes are the only ones that matter.
If you think like this, on those words, then we are in bigger shit for "national laws" is in the "scope of agreement" clauses, does that mean, India signed on to the Hyde? I think not. But does not help to think too hard here.

Shaurya_T wrote:There is no clause, unlike China, which specifically denies the use of national laws as reasons, for non performance.
Ah.. but this 123 clause of China states Principle of International law which precludes invocation of national laws for non-performance. India can cite the principle of international law (if arguments persist then cite China 123 doc signed by the US) as the same basis for non-performance.
No, it cannot and it cannot use the china agreement for its own purposes. Bala - you are being very inventive here.

The principle in contracts is to specify, those things that apply and leave out, those that do not.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

ShauryaT wrote:Bala - you are being very inventive
Arey Bhai, I am simply reading the 123 as is and interpreting it the way it is. No more no less. You are the one going of on tangents. I did not state that India signed Hyde. All I am saying is that those who made a leap of faith into Hyde from 123 reading are mistaken.

Article 16, is about "Force and Duration" which by its implication means that these are terms for enforcement. Here it states Principle of International Laws. I believe one of the principles of international laws is that one cannot invoke national laws as justification for non-performance. And Article 16 abides by principles of international laws. This covers IMO China's 123 explicit clause by implication. Don't need to be inventive just exact/precise would do.
emsin

Post by emsin »

Please feel free to tell us how India will add all the tons of power without becoming dependent on a foreign source.
God knows i wrote an exhaustive reply for you..it conked off coz there was no electricity..my UPS tends to conk off faster than you think it holds. It's hard to retain the points..but essence is..we are VERY heavily still dependent on foreign sources of power. We are already a Dhimmi nation. We are struggling for our energy security with Iran and a pipe line through Pakistan. You have no clue to how desperate we have become.

Top it..we bid a bloc here in central asia or africa..and China outbids..why? Cut the crap out..India's fundamental and MOST important need now is POWER! This is the BEST deal..however flawed we can get. Take it or leave it.

And GWB is the best Prez US will offer us for it. We've erred very heavily in the past, we have to pay a price. NOW. Yet the US has made amends for us. It's getting us a lot without us signing the NPT etc..else we stay with the sanctions regime.

..ooops power gone again sorry/
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Image
Who rules India? PM or CPM?


As the Middle Kingdom celebrates a remarkable foreign policy triumph achieved entirely by leveraging its hold on India's internal affairs, we should be asking one fundamental question: Who governs India? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh or CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat?

It's always hazardous to prophesise the course of Indian politics but the exultant body language of Messrs Karat, Yechuri and Bardhan last Thursday suggested that the Communists knew they had won their most famous victory since Non-Alignment mortgaged Indian foreign policy to the Soviet Union.

The scale of the Communist victory should not be minimised. First, regardless of all the brave talk of international diplomacy resuming in November, it is safe to surmise that time-servers in the Congress don't want the shadow of a snap poll looming over the UPA Government for the remainder of its tenure. They will ensure that the nuclear issue is not resurrected as long as the Communist threat persists. As far as they are concerned, the grandstanding is not worth jeopardising the remaining months in power at the Centre.

The Prime Minister's spin doctors have argued that a temporary postponement does not materially affect the negotiations at IAEA and with the NSG, but this is an optimism aimed purely at salvaging the week's headlines. Manmohan's pathetic isolation within his own party will become obvious regardless of Congress' acknowledgment of the merits of the nuke deal.

Second, the Congress will be naïve in believing that appeasement of the Left has secured peace and that subsequently good-cop Yechury will prevail over bad-cop Karat. Adept at boxing above its class, the August crisis has demonstrated to the Communists that it is possible to win the ideological game without spilling blood. It is now certain that the Left will now enlarge the battlelines to other spheres, viz economics, education and social policy. Incredible India should be ready to confront its most serious internal challenge.

Third, in taking on the threat of the Prime Minister to withdraw and be damned, the Left has shown that it is the more resolute player. Manmohan has not merely blinked, he has been forced to eat humble pie. Already regarded as weak, his belated attempt to come across as a decisive leader has come a cropper. Since failure is never a collective responsibility, the Prime Minister has cleared many obstacles in the path of his exit route. He looks set to go down in history as the leader who walked on snow and left no footprints.

Finally, the Left has not merely won a famous battle against "US imperialism", it has taken a giant leap towards shedding a baggage that it has been forced to carry for decades: The taint of being at odds with Indian nationalism and nationhood. This is a charge that has dogged the Communist parties right from their inception. Exorcising the movement of charges of extra-territoriality is, under the circumstances, a stupendous gain.

Curiously, the CPI(M) didn't have to lift a little finger to show that it is leading the charge to uphold Indian sovereignty against foreign encroachments. Its work was done by those who nominally sit in the Opposition benches in Parliament. The BJP's impression of reaffirming a me-too Leftism -- driven, it would seem, by the need to proclaim the infallibility of its spokesmen -- has unwittingly served as the most glowing testimonial to Communist nationalism.

The debate over the Indo-US nuclear agreement is not going to dominate the political discourse at the grassroots either now or in the future. The next General Election, whenever it is held, will be fought on bread and butter issues. However, the long-term effects of a thwarted agreement will haunt India. Future historians may come to view August 2007 as the moment the political class stalled India's leap into the big league. We may still get there but who will compensate for the lost time?

Still, magnanimity demands we shouldn't begrudge the victory celebrations in our eastern and western neighbourhood. They have shown that containing India is a remarkably low-cost option.


emsin

Post by emsin »

The trouble with this pact is this:

We have become a VERY arrogant nation. We Indians are ARROGANT*. That is a specific complaint i face. Every DDM media portrays us as SUPERPOWER seekers..i feel ashamed of it.

Power status will come naturally. Not by enforcement or force or by seeking and running debates in high school or TOI.

We need NOW something which someone else can provide for OUR benefit..

Why do we need be arrogant..? Why conceited? Why from Iran and not from US?

What do you really want? Test 10 TN 15 MT devices for public consumption..? LOL

JMT: The most sophisticated Nukes in possession of any country are with the Indians. Ask Chidambaram.


* This is what i am encountering in almost everywhere is see fellow Indians. Putting ashtrays on pool tables, travelling on high beam, honking before the lights turn green..tail getting just plain savage behaviour on the roads..and you know that Indians are yet to civilize into decent behaviour towards folks that don't know their group.

We have to change drastically our way of thinking and the way we look towards others. We have again to regain the humility we have lost these centuries..that is the tough task.

Not the nuke deal.
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

From the KS article:
It is unrealistic to expect a developing nation to become an advanced nation on its own.
The United States was a developing nation for a very big chunk of its entire existence, and survived and prospered despite challenges such as:

i) the Civil War of 1861-65 in which more than 2% of its entire population of 31 million were casualties (an equivalent number for India today would be a Civil War with 20 million plus casualties);

ii) the British ransacking of the whole of Washington, DC in 1814 (including the burning down of the White House and the Capitol; President Madison and his wife had to flee);

iii) wars with Mexico and continuing conflict with Native Americans spreading over generations; and

iv) dealing with the impact of big power intrigue in its extended neighborhood (the British, French, and Spanish were all there).
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Yes. However that was the early modern era with time on its side. the post modern era requires time compression due to people's awareness. Hence India doesn't have the time to take its own sweet time to get there for it will find its way blocked.

One more thing folks I can stand you'll bashing politicians even if they are former bureaucats but not KS. He has been worried about India and been strategising while you were still a gleam in your parents eyes. Thoda sooncho who you are maligning!
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

self deleted. duplicate.
Last edited by sraj on 05 Sep 2007 07:51, edited 1 time in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

ramana wrote:One more thing folks I can stand you'll bashing politicians even if they are former bureaucats but not KS. He has been worried about India and been strategising while you were still a gleam in your parents eyes. Thoda sooncho who you are maligning!
Agreed. Nothing and no one can diminish his services to the nation.

I had that post written up, since yesterday and was thinking real hard, If I want to go against that article. But, if you take that name out...the arguments can be countered.

I do not know why, but the article came across as weak. As, from a person, who is tired and wants to give in. A person, who certainly, knows our strengths and weaknesses too well and is not confident that we can make it as an independent power.

Forgive me, for my intent is not to mallign him but I cannot go against, what my conscience tells me, based on facts, as my limited mind sees them.
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

Ramana,

Contributions of KS are well recognised and respected. He was one of the first in independent India to start thinking of these things in a systematic way. At various points since the 60s, he has been ahead of the curve and sometimes a little behind. That is but natural as the broad consensus shifts from time to time.

The key discussion point right now is whether there is an implicit acceptance of the Germany/Japan scenario by a section of our policymakers. If so, it needs full debate and cannot be slipped through. If not (more likely situation in my view), we need to ensure that any loopholes in the arrangements currently under discussion that may unwittingly - and unwillingly - drag us towards that scenario are plugged properly to the satisfaction of all key stakeholders. At the very least, GoI's political management of this process has not enhanced its credibility and has heightened suspicion, thereby making its task more difficult.

Respectfully pointing out possible flaws in someone's argument with appropriate backup is the essence of debate, where we all have the same objective and are all better off as a result. It should not be misconstrued as maligning.

P.S. If that German intelligence report quoted in the book coming out on Sept 13 is correct about Pakistan still proliferating, what does that tell us about US desire or ability to do anything about the situation?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Fair enough. But try to see without the 'tired' glasses. Does he have a case? I think he has gamed the scenario and you will see PRC getting more realistic. Once that happens, this gives reform in TSP a chance to walk of the military edge.

He is not tired. By keeping the flame alive all these years, he has passed the torch on to others like you who can question the message.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

ramana wrote:Does he have a case?
Most certainly. It is of the lens, which says, hell to all this agreement/act nonsense. Let us go and do what we need to do. Protecting our essentials and live to fight another day. This nuclear era has moved on and we need to move on to the next phase. Maybe there is a tinge of jealousy due to China's march ahead in the economic sphere and hence these moves with the US to march ahead and regain balance.

There is another possibility. He is wrong in his calculations of US behavior.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Ramana; with all due respects; we should not believe in infalliablity of a man; any man; however good; nobody is "blaming" KS; when we say he is only human.

Secondly since you are keen on Indian Interests thread; you must have seen my effort to "game" possible scenario's KS might have gamed with ABCC to increase our understanding; however that did not go anywhere.

In essence we are willing to hear and understand what KS says and is trying to say; but pointed critisism of any individiual is valid as long as we dont indulge in ideological bashing.

IMVHO
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku,

And with equal respects, I have to point out that in all of your posts, you have not addressed the basic question of how India will get the energy it needs in the absence of this deal?

Do you have a plan? Well, spell it out, with figures and numbers and by source, not the same rhetoric you post in every post of yours.

Do you know for example what India's uranium reserves are? And what PHWR capacity they can support? Do you know how much fuel is needed to load up a FBR? Do you know when the earliest AHWR will come on stream? In the absence of this deal, why dont you lay down your alternative vision with hard numbers and figures of what India's power capacity will be over the 5, 10, 20, 30 and 50 years?

You have pushed enough political rhetoric. What about demonstrating what you know about ground realities with hard numbers?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Shankar wrote:[

2050 - 2 74 000 MW that is an addition of more than 250000 MW in less than 30 yrs or 250 light water reactor or equivalent in fast breeders and may be some advanced heavy water reactors.This is exactly double what we produce today all in all
Expected cost at 4 billion per 1000 MW reactor = 1000 billion US Dollars

-Does it look feasible by any chance -???
Shankar; feasiblity aside; please note AK has made the statement on nuclear power immediately after the one on Thorium cycle; it appears that his projections are based on internal capacity and not imported stuff. Please keep that in mind when you dissect the statement.

AK is clearly not in favor of imported LWRs and imported fuel dependence.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

We must move from "dependence" thinking towards "stability, responsibility, & trustiness". The dependence has no meaning.. since every thing is relative. We are wanting to boost our energy production and the world is willing to provide us the fuel..

I don't like this over "dependence" from states that are actually swindling India, in the name of counter-dependence.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:You have pushed enough political rhetoric. What about demonstrating what you know about ground realities with hard numbers?
Ah Idev; I have been pushing "political rhetoric" have I? So all the points that I make about the lack of a good deal are rhetorical where as all the pro-deal opponents have posted hard nosed figures have they?

Please dont be surprised if I feel disinclined to answer your question at least now. OTOH if you want to tell us "rhetorical" people the same with out indulging in rhetoric (sorry assertion of conclusions as N^3 says) I am sure lot of people will listen.

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

PS> The frontline article on nuclear energy with plenty of figures is in this thread itself; Arun_S calculation of nuke material is in archives. I have seen those; and have not seen any one question/challenge them. I also use the previous debate on "all (meaning full NWS status) or nothing" for material please refer back.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku wrote: Please dont be surprised if I feel disinclined to answer your question at least now.
So you dont know anything about the actual numbers which form the basis of the facts as to why this deal is important. And therefore you decline to answer the question. And you have no alternative vision of what kind of energy matrix will power India's growth?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

bala wrote:Why is this an article of faith and so what if we use foreign sources. Currently, we are consuming oil, a foreign source, for eons.
So oil and coal is same as nuclear material is it? Same set of conditions including sanctionabilty etc? Sigh; I am sure even you know better. Is this really a serious question :roll:
Sanku wrote:Time to put some canards to rest ...

self-executing treaty
China also has a 123 treaty with the US.
China's treaty makes a clear statement -- "No domestic laws apply"; THAT IS DIFFERENT. You have further had a lot of clarity given to you by ST on this topic since you made the post; I dont have to add anything; if you havent learnt now; you will never learn.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

emsin wrote:
Please feel free to tell us how India will add all the tons of power without becoming dependent on a foreign source.
God knows i wrote an exhaustive reply for you..it conked off coz there was no electricity..my UPS tends to conk off faster than you think it holds. It's hard to retain the points..but essence is..we are VERY heavily still dependent on foreign sources of power. We are already a Dhimmi nation. We are struggling for our energy security with Iran and a pipe line through Pakistan. You have no clue to how desperate we have become.

Top it..we bid a bloc here in central asia or africa..and China outbids..why? Cut the crap out..India's fundamental and MOST important need now is POWER! This is the BEST deal..however flawed we can get. Take it or leave it.

And GWB is the best Prez US will offer us for it. We've erred very heavily in the past, we have to pay a price. NOW. Yet the US has made amends for us. It's getting us a lot without us signing the NPT etc..else we stay with the sanctions regime.

..ooops power gone again sorry/
You know..Just don't bother. A fool is a fool. Let em be. What India need is an emergency and lock these blokes up. Even debating with them gives a sense that we are giving them a modicum of respectability. IMO, these commies and the commie sympathizers should not be given any quarters anymore. We need to treat them with extreme prejudice. They are India's enemies. All these debates here and there is a cover for their agenda. I don't mean folks who had disagreements earlier all this time. I am talking about the ones who have come into the picture after the commies objected. Their timing is proof for me, that they have evil intentions. They speak out now cause they feel empowered by the their comrade Karat.
Last edited by Manny on 05 Sep 2007 09:22, edited 2 times in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:
Sanku wrote: Please dont be surprised if I feel disinclined to answer your question at least now.
So you dont know anything about the actual numbers which form the basis of the facts as to why this deal is important. And therefore you decline to answer the question. And you have no alternative vision of what kind of energy matrix will power India's growth?
That's rehotric; and spin to boot. What I said was your attitude is odious and the material which you seek already exists on the thread; (I have seen your France post and the replies to the same) so if you were remotly serious about a debate you would use one of the existing points there in as a starting point; which makes me disinclined to answer you right now may be later in a different context I will have this debate with others.

As always like the pro-deal folks love to do; this simple truth will be spun around a lot.

Secondly; I never thought this deal was only about energy :lol: ; the discussion has gone from meeting the world as a nuclear equal; to geo-political love relationships; to begging for scraps for energy now at any cost.

Philip's dog story is so apt.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Manny wrote:
..ooops power gone again sorry/
You know..Just don't bother. A fool is a fool. Let em be.
I love it how stress under truth reveals the true color; I have now been called a BJPian and a leftist :lol:

Meanwhile we have McCarthy type facists and 12 years olds pretending to live in India when they are actually outside the country. Jack booted thugs who wish to use force rather than strenth of argument.

This is comdey central now; being led by un crowned king of the same.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Sanku wrote:So oil and coal is same as nuclear material is it? Same set of conditions including sanctionabilty etc? Sigh; I am sure even you know better. Is this really a serious question
Like Rye says, you must be the class village idiot for coming to the above conclusion. Take something of the wall, connect up irrelevant stuff and throw up your hands and shake your tiny head. What me worry and then become prim and proper and wash your hands of like the CPI&M dolts. Sigh, Is this a serious conclusion.
Sanku wrote:if you havent learnt now; you will never learn.
Please cut your pompous stmts. You are either stupid or plain adamant. You don't seem to understand any of the arguments and you seem to go off like a lunatic on a one track proposition - i.e. i (Sanky the grreat) oppose the deal come what may and I (Sanky the grreat) have no logical arguments.
Last edited by bala on 05 Sep 2007 10:07, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

bala wrote:
Sanku wrote:if you havent learnt now; you will never learn.
Please cut your pompous stmts. You are stupid or plain adamant. You dont seem to understand any of the arguments and you seem to go off like a lunatic on a one track proposition - i.e. i oppose the deal come what may.
Ah facing facts is frustating is it!! Good; good. I am still waiting for a resonable reply instead of head in sand and personal attacks btw.

When you cant attack the message; attack the messenger :rotfl:
Last edited by Sanku on 05 Sep 2007 10:44, edited 1 time in total.
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 487
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Derailing the deal

Post by Sanatanan »

I am not sure whether this thought has been already posted in BRF:

If China wants to stop the India-US deal in its tracks, then all it has to do is to claim (at an opportune time and forum of its choice) that it has carried out a nuclear test. The rest will follow.

But I think China won't do it; by proceeding with the deal India is any way on the self-destruct path.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

sraj wrote:
The key discussion point right now is whether there is an implicit acceptance of the Germany/Japan scenario by a section of our policymakers. If so, it needs full debate and cannot be slipped through. If not (more likely situation in my view), we need to ensure that any loopholes in the arrangements currently under discussion that may unwittingly - and unwillingly - drag us towards that scenario are plugged properly to the satisfaction of all key stakeholders. At the very least, GoI's political management of this process has not enhanced its credibility and has heightened suspicion, thereby making its task more difficult.

Respectfully pointing out possible flaws in someone's argument with appropriate backup is the essence of debate, where we all have the same objective and are all better off as a result. It should not be misconstrued as maligning.

P.S. If that German intelligence report quoted in the book coming out on Sept 13 is correct about Pakistan still proliferating, what does that tell us about US desire or ability to do anything about the situation?
Exceptionaly lucid and beautiful summary of the situation. Good show indeed birather.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Derailing the deal

Post by amit »

Sanatanan wrote:I am not sure whether this thought has been already posted in BRF:

If China wants to stop the India-US deal in its tracks, then all it has to do is to claim (at an opportune time and forum of its choice) that it has carried out a nuclear test. The rest will follow.

But I think China won't do it; by proceeding with the deal India is any way on the self-destruct path.
Sanatanan,

Do you subscribe to the view expressed by many others who are against this deal that India has inherent economic, political and intellectual strength to hold out till it gets a better deal?

If so, pray can you tell me if India is so strong, how does it go into the self distruct mode the moment it signs this deal?

Really folks maybe its just me but I really don't get it. On the one hand the cry is we are so strong and powerful we don't need US or any superpower's help. On the other hand the moment we sign on the dotted line we are doomed to be a poodle nation like Japan**.

Hey if we're strong and capable of an independent course of action becaue of who we are and what we are then we remain strong deal or no deal!

___________________________________________________________

** When you consider the fact that Japan is the second biggest economy in the world after the US and still far bigger than China, I really wonder if being a poodle to the US really is bad for the Japanese?

After all it's outsourced its nuclear defence to the US and not a single Japanese gets bombed, maimed and killed by Islamic fundoos and other terrorists within Japan.

It's people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world and yes remember Russia and Japan were in the same state of mess after the end of World War II. It would be instructive to compare the standard of living of the people of these two countries now. One a "poodle" the other a "great power".

That being said, I'm not advocating we follow Japan's path but please give me a break and don't use Japan's name in such a condescending way in this discussion. It would appear from some posts that Japan is no better off than our friendly mullahstan across the western border.
Last edited by amit on 05 Sep 2007 12:06, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

@amit: The last bit in your post was directed at me I think; which is okay since I made that post with comparisons; however dont get me wrong I wasnt comparing anything; it is just that the post to which my reply was made was so deep that anything else would be unjust reply.

Secondly; there are all manners of folks who support and oppose the deal; there are plenty of sane supporters like you who understand the consequences accept them and are willing to live with the potential downside; there are others who are "lets bat for massa" types. Similarly there are all manners of opposition. If I may humbly suggest you would be better of enganging folks like abhishekcc (who seems to not have accessed the site for a couple of days) for the kind of world view discussion you seem keen on. I assure you that will be worth the while.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Derailing the deal

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote: Hey if we're strong and capable of an independent course of action becaue of who we are and what we are then we remain strong deal or no deal!
Without getting drawn into a discussion on the great details; since that will be OT and more suitable for geo-pol thread; I would like to mention that there is a concern (with lot of reasons posted) on how the deal potentially changes who we are. Because who we are does change with time and we have to ensure that the change is for better by suitable guidance minimizing the bad inputs and increasing the good ones.

Last post on this; just some thoughts I wished to express.

PS> sraj and Tilak posted some nice what-if scenario's outlining the FMCT type usage of the deal. You might want to check those out.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:@amit: The last bit in your post was directed at me I think; which is okay since I made that post with comparisons; however dont get me wrong I wasnt comparing anything; it is just that the post to which my reply was made was so deep that anything else would be unjust reply.

Secondly; there are all manners of folks who support and oppose the deal; there are plenty of sane supporters like you who understand the consequences accept them and are willing to live with the potential downside; there are others who are "lets bat for massa" types. Similarly there are all manners of opposition. If I may humbly suggest you would be better of enganging folks like abhishekcc (who seems to not have accessed the site for a couple of days) for the kind of world view discussion you seem keen on. I assure you that will be worth the while.
Sanku,

Thanks for your nice reply. :lol:

I feel too much bad blood has been generated in a lot of the posts from both anti- and pro- dealites.

So much so that a few posts back I did try to point out that we are all batting for the same side that is India. I feel all of us are advocating what we sincerely believe to be the best for India.

We may disagree with each other but that's our inherent strength and I firmly believe that at the end of all this ding dong, not only on BRF but also in the political arena the end result will be a situation which would be the best possible for India - notwithstanding off course our favourite Little Lenins. :D

And whatever I'm posting is not meant for any one particular poster, excepting the actual questions that I may ask.

I would love to discuss this with Abhishekcc or anyone else. However, I do feel that you can't discuss the technical merits/demerits of a document like 123 in a vaccum without considering the larger geo-political scenario that is being played out.

After all why is it that the US agreed to this kind of deal (never mind the merits/demerits) now, instead of say 10 years ago or maybe 5 years hence?

Also please note I'm trying to understand all the viewpoints that are being expressed and if I do post a question, it's not because I violently disagree with the assertion on the contrary I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind it.

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

Post by Sanku »

Amit; we (at least I) have been keeping the discussion under restricted realm of "how does the 123 deal get India to be a equal oppertunity participant in the Nuke process" (where equal is equal to NWS). This was what was promised. The questions are does it or does it not? If it does not what % of NWS status does it give us (my reading is between 33-50%) and is that take away good for the price we pay including changes in our policy.

I believe it is too early in the game to switch the game to pure geo-political discussion; because if we are doing that it means we have answers to the questions above or as sraj said; some folks in polity are steering us towards a Japan/Germany model and we havent even lost a war with US. :lol:
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:Amit; we (at least I) have been keeping the discussion under restricted realm of "how does the 123 deal get India to be a equal oppertunity participant in the Nuke process" (where equal is equal to NWS). This was what was promised. The questions are does it or does it not? If it does not what % of NWS status does it give us (my reading is between 33-50%) and is that take away good for the price we pay including changes in our policy.

I believe it is too early in the game to switch the game to pure geo-political discussion; because if we are doing that it means we have answers to the questions above or as sraj said; some folks in polity are steering us towards a Japan/Germany model and we havent even lost a war with US. :lol:
Sanku,

If you want to keep the discussion under a restricted parametre then it's fine by me, I won't in that case interject.

However, you said: "This was what was promised"; I suppose you are meaning the J18 document.

Well I think the J18 document/declaration was a classic example of international geo-politics being played out with a major realignment of forces/interests. And if J18 is the benchmark by which everything else like Hyde, 123 etc is to be measured then we go back to fundamental question of what caused J18 in the first place.

But enough said on this, I'll stay on the lurk mode till I find something compellingly new to say - in that way I won't add to the clutter! :lol:

Cheers!
Last edited by amit on 05 Sep 2007 11:54, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Final clarification since this gap crops up many a times: what was promised (what I call J18) == J18 document + Prez. Bush speech at old fort + Dr Singhs speech to the parliament + (sum of all the noises on BRF at the time of what should be the target to get or walking away is better)

Back to lurk too.

PS> I certainly dont mean to say the geo-pol discussion does not merit focus. All I am saying another time or perhaps another thread.
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:

Post by abhischekcc »

There seems to be some confusion/admiration for the positions of W. Europe and Japan as uncle's poodles on this forum.

First thing first. Germany and Japan royally kicked uncle's arse in WW2. America may have defeated the two countries militarily in the war, but did not harm their economic independance. The elites of both Japan and Germany became part of the America led alliance post-WW2. That's why they were rewarded.

America became the manager and the policeman (aka - the Sheriff) of the global capitalist alliance out of sheer necessity. Because they knew that the next world war may just wipe out the AMericans as well. (Just like WW2 wiped out the British empire). They couldn't stay out like they did after WW1.

Under the arrangement, South America was exploited for US economy, Africa for Europe, and East Asia for Japan. The only exception was West Asia, which US kept for itself. Parts of Asia were bundled off to the Soviets (we were part of that bundle).


The elite of the defeated axis powers was not wiped out after the war. Only some sham trials of some of the generals were held. Did top officials of IG Farben of Germany face punishment? They were the ones who manufactured the gassing equipment used in holocaust, even before the nazis even thought of starting the holocaust?


------------------
There is another myth being propogated by many people, especially in media and kangrez wallahs - that India's 123 is better than China's 123. That is simply a lie. China is a NWS state under the NPT, hence a lot of restrictions do not apply to it.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Post by Philip »

http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/05/stories ... 931000.htm
The nuclear deal: the larger picture

Vikram Sood

As the U.S. readies for the battles of the 21st century, India must not ignore the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China and the relevance of Iran. It must manage its relations with all these powers.

The India-United States nuclear deal that was supposed to be a path breaking agreement has run into stiff opposition in both countries where critics say that each has given too much for too little. For India, the deal was supposed to provide nuclear energy to make good the shortfall, access to hi-technology, be an economic bonanza for the future and grant legitimacy as a major power. For the U.S., it was part of a larger game plan. The deal was a means to cap India’ s strategic programme, provide access to India’s growing defence market, and become a strategic partner in U.S. foreign policy initiatives globally. One of the abiding primary bipartisan U.S. objectives has been to restrict, roll back and cap the Indian strategic deterrent. Bill Clinton tried it earlier when he wanted India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and announce a moratorium on fissile production. But critics in the U.S. fear that the deal has weakened the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime.

There have been different interpretations of the deal in the two capitals. New Delhi asserts that the agreement assures continued supply of fuel and that if there is any disruption, the U.S. would help find an alternative source. American officials do not agree and will help only in the case of technical or logistical difficulties. This means that there would be no assistance in case India violates some aspects of the agreement or tests a nuclear device or reprocesses U.S. origin fuel.

The 123 Agreement has been extensively commented upon by strategic analysts, experienced commentators and scientists. One of the arguments being that the Hyde Act suggests that India should work bilaterally with the U.S. for an early conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty instead of what India has wanted — a universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable arrangement. The Americans would want to rely on national technical means which would make the deal bilaterally intrusive. The deal does not give India access to reprocessing, enrichment or heavy water technologies or dual use components. In addition, the right of return of nuclear material, restrictions on reprocessing or building fuel reserves, verification and end-use monitoring, have been built into the agreement. This could restrict our strategic capabilities and options in the years ahead.

The deal was supposed to give India several benefits but the pressure to sign the deal by a specific deadline mostly came from the Americans, almost as if India was being hustled into this. The old principle of never ever signing anything in a hurry was abandoned. The Japanese, for instance, spent seven years discussing the deal before signing it. The China-U.S. 123 agreement of 1985 specifically states that both sides would observe the principle of international law under which neither party could invoke a domestic law to justify failure to perform a treaty. The India-U.S. 123 agreement does not have this safeguard.

It would be unreasonable to expect that the U.S. would give us a carte blanche on the business of testing and fissile material. But it was also unnecessary for us to have allowed what was a voluntary moratorium on testing become binding in a bilateral arrangement. It was also not necessary to agree to a U.S.-led fissile material cut off instead of a multilateral arrangement in Geneva. This is what we had agreed on July 18, 2005 and since then it has been a steady process downhill. In March 2006, we agreed to place 14 of our 22 reactors under safeguards and eventually shut down the Cirus reactor permanently. By voting in the manner in which we did at the IAEA on the Iran issue, we have set a precedent that may be difficult to live down. From now onwards, whenever we vote along with the U.S. or do any deal with it, opponents to this action will accuse the government of having become subservient to the U.S.

Unfortunately, the official response to the various criticisms or doubts has been dismissive and disappointingly inadequate. No one has bothered to sit down and explain that the various doubts and fears expressed were either incorrect or exaggerated. Instead, the response has been to depict criticism as a reflection of tunnel vision of cold war mindsets or nitpicking by ignoramuses. In the midst of this emotional debate, it was forgotten that dissent is also a form of patriotism. Protagonists of the deal have claimed that the 123 Agreement overrides the Hyde Act. This is incorrect because the 1954 Atomic Energy Act is the mother of all such Acts; the Hyde Act is a stringent enabling India-specific legislation for the 123 Agreement to be signed within the parameters of the Hyde Act. It has been suggested that in case the deal did not go through, Pakistan and China would collaborate for a similar deal. Surely this would have been factored in when the deal was being negotiated. It does not require any special clairvoyance to predict that whatever the outcome of the India-U.S. deal, Pakistan would want to seek a similar arrangement either with the U.S. and failing which, with China. In a high pitch drive, it has even been suggested that this deal would now open the doors for all sorts of hi-tech technologies. Conversely, should India be seen to be in violation of this deal, these technologies would be withdrawn from us followed by sanctions.

The Nick Burns statement in Washington on July 27 is a clear enunciation of what the U.S. expects from the deal. He said that the 123 Agreement “brings India … back into the nonproliferation mainstream in a way it was not before. And that is a tangible gain for India, as well as the U.S. and the rest of the world.â€
Last edited by Philip on 05 Sep 2007 15:25, edited 1 time in total.
Locked