Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2007 23:33

I see that there are a lot of articles in the media which need to be discussed but are not being due to the foramt of the other thread. I request members not to derail this thread like last time with inane and non germane posts. Request is directed to emsin and sanku

For example

Acharya wrote:
ShibaPJ wrote:India could have gone nuclear in '65 with US nod

India could have gone nuclear in '65 with US nod
19 Sep 2007, 0001 hrs IST,Gautam Siddharth,TNN
Print Save EMail Write to Editor
NEW DELHI: Had Washington given a green signal to New Delhi in February 1965, India would have been able to conduct a "dramatic peaceful achievement" - a euphemism for nuclear test as, indeed, how it was described with Pokhran 1 - well within a year of Chinese nuclear blast at Lop Nor in 1964.

According to declassified US State Department "memorandum of conversation" dated February 22, 1965, between US undersecretary of state George W Ball and India's secretary of Department of Nuclear Enegry Homi J Bhabha, the Indian scientist had explicitly told the American official that "if India went all out, it could produce a nuclear device in 18 months, and with a US blueprint it could do the job in six months".

The memorandum, along with reams of other documents, has been reproduced and released for public for the first time in the book 'India and the United States: Politics of the Sixties' by senior journalist Kalyani Shankar.

While the stated US reason for not supporting India's nuclear test was that America was trying to ensure that all the major non-nuclear countries renounced nuclear weapons, the subtext from several other declassified letters, memorandums and reports of US Directorate of Intelligence, CIA and then American ambassador in Delhi Chester Bowles' letters to US officials in Washington reveal that it was India's inheritance of the non-aligned worldview from Nehru and Delhi’s refusal to support the US in several key international situations through the 1960s that queered the pitch for fostering the sort of understanding that's being attempted today, more than 40 years later.

In one of her letters to President Lyndon B Johnson (dated May 12, 1966), Indira Gandhi describes the extent of hostile opposition she faced, writing in one place, "My critics have chosen the Indo-US foundation as the springboard for a personal attack on me, even though the basic idea had been agreed long before I came to office."



Now this is an interesting article.

1) HB's idea appears not implementable. If he needs US help then he is definitely not independent. And why would US provide this 'help"? Is there something missing that is not being reported? Was US handing out the technology to others and so he expected the same with respect to India?

2) It shows that India always was under US tutelage vis a vis the nuke test issue.

3) Something happened in 1965 that changed the US perception with respect to India. Was it the elevation of LBS to the PM's post?

4) This article shows that the 123 is a way of resuming business and that PVNR and ABV are the mavericks who came to power and rocked the apple cart.

5) US policy was consistent in seeking alignment of India's policies with those of the US from dropping NAM during JLN's time to Iran policy under UPA. This is the menaing of preventing local or regional powers from challenging the US way of thinking which was foramlized in the post Cold War era.
Last edited by ramana on 20 Sep 2007 01:25, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Nuke Discussion Nukkad Thread.

Postby svinayak » 19 Sep 2007 23:43

ramana wrote:
Now this is an interesting article.

1) HB's idea appears not implementable. If he needs US help then he is definitely not independent. And why would US provide this 'help"? Is there something missing that is not being reported? Was US handing out the technology to others and so he expected the same with respect to India?

By revealing the plans HB gave the game away about India's strategic independence. This is mainly result of the colonial Indian mind unable to take an independent action.


2) It shows that India always was under US tutelage vis a vis the nuke test issue.
Other reasons such as India not able to get the full picture of the Soviet, China and US dynamics during the cold war.


3) Something happened in 1965 that changed the US perception with respect to India. Was it the elevation of LBS to the PM's post?

The major event in 1965 was the India-Pak war which gave the US more leverage with the Pak and also the entire Muslim world. The Middle east changed their foriegn exchange reservoir from Indian RUpee to US dollar and transferred their holdings to western banks. This gave west leverage to contain India - economically and politically.


4) This article shows that the 123 is a way of resuming business and that PVNR and ABV are the mavericks who came to power and rocked the apple cart.

They just correct the the direction so that India reaches its destiny

5) US policy was consistent in seeking alignment of India's policies with those of the US from dropping NAM during JLN's time to Iran policy under UPA. This is the menaing of preventing local or regional powers from challenging the US way of thinking which was foramlized in the post Cold War era.
Last edited by svinayak on 20 Sep 2007 00:51, edited 1 time in total.

emsin

Postby emsin » 20 Sep 2007 00:11

Request is directed to emsin and sanku


Lets scrap this deal. folks. It's not worthwhile any more. We have plenty Uranium, just not being mined.. And US is gonna screw us big time if we do.

We can negotiate this deal after 4, 8, 12 years.

I'm totally now in favor of what Rye and Arun S are saying.

What do we do to call AK back. He's sold out it seems.

And Energy security is not essential to this debate at all. I get that too after a long hiatus. I went through the archives of course where it was all too evident.

But lets give a BIG hand to the LEFT. Specially Yechury and Karat..for doing this for us. Else we would never have known..

Enjoy yourself.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Sep 2007 00:18

Thanks. Please keep you distance.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 20 Sep 2007 00:18

re Arun, is your argument not based heavily on phase 2 & 3 of nuclear programme being a success? What is fall back strategy if it fails?

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 20 Sep 2007 00:50

Thanks, Ramana.. This thread is very timely.. & the topic needs thorough discussion. What I don't understand is this:

Homi J Bhabha, the Indian scientist had explicitly told the American official that "if India went all out, it could produce a nuclear device in 18 months, and with a US blueprint it could do the job in six months".

Previously, it has been aluded that India could have tested in the 60's. If HB thought that India going all out could have done that in 18 months, what stopped us? Did we have all the wherewithals? or was LBS misled into not doing it?

3) Something happened in 1965 that changed the US perception with respect to India. Was it the elevation of LBS to the PM's post?

The major event in 1965 was the India-Pak war which gave the US more leverage with the Pak and also the entire Muslim world. The Middle east changed their foriegn exchange reservoir from Indian RUpee to US dollar and transferred their holdings to western banks. This gave west leverage to contain India - economically and politically.

LBS was known as a nationalist hardliner (declining PL-480), this could have been the clincher.. India was in a revival phase post-62 & in no shape to challenge the western block nor much of an use as a puppet.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Sep 2007 01:03

A few more thoughts. Look at the interlocutors -India's Bhabha from DAE with George Ball, from the US State dept. Has anything changed in last 50 years? Only during the NDA did India deploy Jaswant Singh of MEA with Talbott of US SD.

I do not know if the 18 month schedule was feasible or not. Any way its past.

I think in 1960s was the first time the US elite saw they could get dominaince and started on a new path.
Get the ME of the Rupee economy and get them linked to the dollar.
Keep potential regional powers in the minor league by whatever means it takes.

Yes there were hiccups on the way but overall the plan stayed intact.


BTW, Telegraph reports

123 to 456, US rubs salt into Karat cut

Sadly the paper sees it as a group issue than a national interests issue. Isn't the US amabssador excceeding the brief by participating in domestic debate in India?

Also read recently that MMS was in AIIMS for some surgery. Who was in charge of the nukes during the process? NDA times the protocol was that the second in command is the RM. If he was the first person when MMS was in surgery, who was the second person?

Or maybe it was all nautanki and no need for any persons!

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Postby kumarn » 20 Sep 2007 01:07

Bomb on a Bullock Cart

Chief problem for India's nuclear advocates, of course, is their nation's deep emotional attachment to the principles of nonviolence, as practiced by Gandhi and internationally canonized by the late Jawaharlal Nehru. In a speech to students last week, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Nehru's successor, loyally insisted: "We cannot change our conviction because of China's action."
....
India's scientists, who think differently, are confident that they can explode a nuclear device within 18 months.
....
Homi J. Bhabha. chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, even maintains that the price is right. In a recent broadcast. Bhabha said that less than $21 million would buy a stockpile of 50 atomic bombs; for an additional $10 million, India could build 50 two-megaton H-bombs. Western experts agree with Bhabha's figures.

wow! How much is $21m in today's terms?

Asked one skeptic: "What would we use to deliver an atomic bomb? A bullock cart?"

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8430
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 20 Sep 2007 01:16

If Homi Bhaba estimated $21 million USD in 1964, that would roughly translate to $110 - $417 million USD in 2006. This doesn't seem unreasonable.

See: http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

Nandu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 08 Jan 2002 12:31

Postby Nandu » 20 Sep 2007 01:22

Ramana-ji may I request that the work "nuke" in the title be changed to "nuclear". The word "nuke" earlier had the exclusive connotation of referring to nuclear weapons, and I believe the abbreviation was deliberately adopted by some in the context of the Indo-US deal in order to detract from its civilian nature.

Thanks.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 20 Sep 2007 01:35

nukkadizing further,

get the nuked deal,
go for the seperation,
hyde our nukes,
deploy subcritical testing facilities,
buy nsg fuel, only after the above [time it].
now, if by any hyde should happen, must happen before we bought intl fuel.
if the above still makes buddha smile,
get the whole yucca repository to india,&
sign big contracts for gnep processing, and as a provider of tech
patent and make money.
2020 - India a great power!

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4125
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Postby KLNMurthy » 20 Sep 2007 02:22

ramana wrote:A few more thoughts. Look at the interlocutors -India's Bhabha from DAE with George Ball, from the US State dept. Has anything changed in last 50 years? Only during the NDA did India deploy Jaswant Singh of MEA with Talbott of US SD.

I do not know if the 18 month schedule was feasible or not. Any way its past.

I think in 1960s was the first time the US elite saw they could get dominaince and started on a new path.
Get the ME of the Rupee economy and get them linked to the dollar.
Keep potential regional powers in the minor league by whatever means it takes.

Yes there were hiccups on the way but overall the plan stayed intact.


BTW, Telegraph reports

123 to 456, US rubs salt into Karat cut

Sadly the paper sees it as a group issue than a national interests issue. Isn't the US amabssador excceeding the brief by participating in domestic debate in India?

Also read recently that MMS was in AIIMS for some surgery. Who was in charge of the nukes during the process? NDA times the protocol was that the second in command is the RM. If he was the first person when MMS was in surgery, who was the second person?

Or maybe it was all nautanki and no need for any persons!


Even during an earlier phase of the nuclear debate, Mulford opened his mouth about the vote on Iran, and stirred things up. Now he is doing it again about the 123. First time might have been a case of Ronen-senits (opening his mouth without discipline) but twice? Knowing it'll p.o. the Indian establishment? Makes me wonder.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Sep 2007 03:09


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4462
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 20 Sep 2007 03:33


John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 20 Sep 2007 03:46

Based on the documents

Where is the trust?
Why this rush (in the eleventh) hour 2?

****
Added later in response to Acharya garu
HB by asking US was giving an opportunity to US to sieze the moment, while PRC was getting all the possible help from USSR.

Recall that even in 1962 all US gave was Jeeps and Transport a/c unlike what it did to TSP (even then).

After all the reactors were under atoms for peace then

But CIA /SD always held the notion that India would dis integrate very very soon and not a viable democratic entity..... unlike mono lithic like TSP

how wrong they were TSP is going the implosion way......

as ramana garu says
vinasa kale viparitha budhee

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

Postby Rye » 20 Sep 2007 06:29

SaiK wrote:
deploy subcritical testing facilities,


That depends on whether we get NSG access to this stuff or not, no?
I think Hyde/123 strictly disallows any cooperation on the part of the US on this stuff.

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

Postby svinayak » 20 Sep 2007 06:36

John Snow wrote:
Added later in response to Acharya garu
HB by asking US was giving an opportunity to US to sieze the moment, while PRC was getting all the possible help from USSR.

Recall that even in 1962 all US gave was Jeeps and Transport a/c unlike what it did to TSP (even then).

After all the reactors were under atoms for peace then


No there is something else they know which Indians dont know.
They knew the transfer of nukes to PRC from Soviet and they approved of it.

Think about it.

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

Postby shiv » 20 Sep 2007 06:39

kumarn wrote:
wow! How much is $21m in todays terms?


In renminbi, US$ or Rupees?

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

Postby Tilak » 20 Sep 2007 07:07

We’ll get back, India tells IAEA
Amit Baruah and Sutirtho Patranobis
Hindustan Times
Last Updated: 03:09 IST(20/9/2007)

[quote]Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar told International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei that India “will get backâ€

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 20 Sep 2007 07:29

ramana: thanks for starting this thread. May I request Admins to exercise their powers promptly to prevent anyone - irrespective of their point of view or seniority - from derailing or trivialising this thread. Thanks.
ShibaPJ wrote:Previously, it has been aluded that India could have tested in the 60's. If HB thought that India going all out could have done that in 18 months, what stopped us? Did we have all the wherewithals? or was LBS misled into not doing it?

Let's look at some dates:
-- Homi Bhabha has discussion with George Ball of US State Dept on Feb 22, 1965 ("18 months by ourselves; 6 months with US help").

-- Indo-Pak War: Aug-Sept, 1965

-- Lal Bahadur Shastri dies: Jan 11, 1966

-- Homi Bhabha dies: Jan 24, 1966

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

Postby bala » 20 Sep 2007 07:31

Kakodkar outlines India’s stand at IAEA meet

Dr. Kakodkar emphasised that it was the responsibility of the U.S. to get NSG exemption for India. Dr. Kakodkar had underpinned the importance of operationalising the deal expeditiously. “It is in everybody’s interest to conclude the nuclear deal sooner than later.â€

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 20 Sep 2007 07:55

Acharya wrote:No there is something else they know which Indians dont know.
They knew the transfer of nukes to PRC from Soviet and they approved of it.

Think about it.

From Page 297 (para 2) of: Gauging U.S.-Indian Strategic Cooperation
During Nixon’s follow-up trip, he reiterated Kissinger’s assurances on Taiwan, confirmed Kissinger’s assurances on the Soviet Union, promised to help restrain Japan’s influence over Taiwan, and agreed to collaborate with China on India—a signal that the United States and China thereafter would be two poles in the Asian power structure.

The US system has all the hallmarks of an efficient machine which thinks years or even decades ahead and is not dependent on personalities when it comes to national security issues. How far along are we to creating a similar system?

PradyD
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 02:52

Postby PradyD » 20 Sep 2007 08:05

it seems like China and US formed a strategic friendship to contain India back in the day. now, the US wants to contain China by making India its chemcha. China and India too can do stuff to contain Unkil on certain issues.

if this is what it'll turn out to be in the future: each of the 3 powers tilting toward one other power on a particular issue to maintain the balance, then it resembles the Italian city-states' politics during the pre-renaissance times. there were no staunch alliances, but alliances were formed temporarily on an issue-by-issue basis, so whenever one city-state got out of hand, the others would control it by uniting against it.

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

Postby amit » 20 Sep 2007 08:14

N-Deal: Govt’s hardsell vs Left hard line

New Delhi, September 19: A meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the Indo-US nuclear deal on Wednesday could not find any common grounds for the coalition partners, with both sides sticking to their positions. Though the Government tried its best to convince the Left—by presenting the example of the US-China 123 agreement—that India had a better deal, the latter refused to come on board.


AND:

US asks India to hurry up n-deal, UPA-Left rift widens

New Delhi, Sep 20 (IANS) Political impasse over the India-US civil nuclear deal deepened Wednesday with the Left parties adamant in their opposition to it even as Washington pressed New Delhi to push the landmark pact through and complete the next step of negotiating safeguards agreement with the IAEA.



The above two news items are representative samples of the kind of news coming out on the 123 deal.

Now it seems that while the Left is sticking to its guns, the Congress is also going ahead with the deal. So when do we see a tipping point?

What will happen to the deal's operationalisation if, for example the Left officially declares it's withdrawing its support but, as it has stated before, does not vote on a possible no-confidence motion bought by BJP? Would the left ask, for example Mulla Yadav's Samajwadi Party to bring a no-confidence motion? What will be BJP's stance in that case?

Also is the Left really going to pull the rug? Or is it just playing to the barracks, so to speak? I've never seen such open fissures in the CPI(M) power structure, with the West Bengalo CM saying one thing and Prakash Karat saying something totally different on the nuclear deal. Also, I think Karat's recent comment of not operationalising the deal for six months is important. That's the minimum time CPI(M) will need in West Bengal at least to get over Singur and Nandigram problems.

Finally what happens to the deal if the UPA government falls and we have an election around March-April timeframe and if the NDA comes to power or, god forbid, a third front steered by the Left.

What will the USA's gameplan be?

I think it would be useful to focus on future possible scenarios as the end game on 123 plays out, instead of focusing on just the merits and demerits of the deal.

Just my 2 cents.

PradyD
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 02:52

Postby PradyD » 20 Sep 2007 08:21

at this point, it all comes down to whether the Left has the guts to call it quits if Congress goes ahead with the deal.

also, how long is it before the deal is to be finally operationalized, which is what matters? can it happen anytime in a month? two months? three? six?
depending on the time frame of the deal and the Left's guts, we know if and when there'll be Lok Sabha elections.

Raju

Postby Raju » 20 Sep 2007 08:23

SONIA VISITING CHINA

Congress President Sonia Gandhi is likely to visit China next month, the state media reported today.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is also likely to be here in November or December, state-owned "China Daily" said a day after India's special envoy and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon held talks with senior Chinese officials here on a range of bilateral issues, including the Indo-US nuclear deal.

While no date for Singh's first visit to China has been announced, according to Menon's discussions with Chinese officials, it could be in November or December, it reported.

"It's also likely that Sonia Gandhi, head of India's ruling Congress party, will visit China next month," the paper said.

Sonia last visited China in 1996, while her planned trip to the country in 2003 was cancelled.

The ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) is apparently quite keen to host Sonia, who had visited China in 1988 along with her late husband Rajiv when he was the Prime Minister, which was a ground-breaking event in Sino-Indian relations.

However, a brief press release, issued by the Indian Embassy here at the end of Menon's visit, did not mention the planned visit of Singh, Sonia and the nuclear issue.

It merely said Menon visited China for discussions with the Chinese government on issues of mutual interest to New Delhi and Beijing as part of the effort to consolidate the strategic and cooperative partnership.

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

Postby svinayak » 20 Sep 2007 08:35

sraj wrote:
Acharya wrote:No there is something else they know which Indians dont know.
They knew the transfer of nukes to PRC from Soviet and they approved of it.

Think about it.

From Page 297 (para 2) of: Gauging U.S.-Indian Strategic Cooperation
During Nixon’s follow-up trip, he reiterated Kissinger’s assurances on Taiwan, confirmed Kissinger’s assurances on the Soviet Union, promised to help restrain Japan’s influence over Taiwan, and agreed to collaborate with China on India—a signal that the United States and China thereafter would be two poles in the Asian power structure.

The US system has all the hallmarks of an efficient machine which thinks years or even decades ahead and is not dependent on personalities when it comes to national security issues. How far along are we to creating a similar system?


Thank you.
India did not learn correctly from the 1962 war and asked for help from US in 1965-1966.

The US system and its predecessor from Churchill thinks even hundred years ahead.Read Lord Curzon to get an idea.

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

Postby amit » 20 Sep 2007 08:36

PradyD wrote:at this point, it all comes down to whether the Left has the guts to call it quits if Congress goes ahead with the deal.

also, how long is it before the deal is to be finally operationalized, which is what matters? can it happen anytime in a month? two months? three? six?
depending on the time frame of the deal and the Left's guts, we know if and when there'll be Lok Sabha elections.


Prady good point. The actual operationalisation that comes after the up and down vote in the US may take sometime, but discussions with IAEA and NSG have to compeleted first. If UPA sticks to timelines and if the impatience being shown by the US is any indication then things will start moving within a month or at the most two months. The Left has indicated that its Lakhman Rekha is talks with IAEA-NSG.

What happens then? I personally believe the Left may have bit off more than it can chew and is desparately looking for a face saving exit. Notice how Bardhan, who's more prone to shoot of his mouth, has either kept quiet or is mellowed in his utterances.

I am interested in how the BJP is going to play its cards here. Personally I hope the next government is BJP, not because I think they are particularly better than the Congress but because at least we won't have the Left, with its Stalinist mindset, dicating foreign policy.

Raju

Postby Raju » 20 Sep 2007 09:07

Acharya wrote:
sraj wrote:The US system has all the hallmarks of an efficient machine which thinks years or even decades ahead and is not dependent on personalities when it comes to national security issues. How far along are we to creating a similar system?

The US system and its predecessor from Churchill thinks even hundred years ahead.Read Lord Curzon to get an idea.


Their foreign policy is not decided within govt/civil administrative framework. They have extra-constitutional supra-govt institutions for discussing foreign policy. It is not affected by change in govt. Once a policy is decided upon the administration is given a fait-accompli.

If they need to gauge public response to any policy decision then it is passed through CFR or other so-called think tank setups.
Last edited by Raju on 20 Sep 2007 09:20, edited 1 time in total.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 20 Sep 2007 09:19

Much of the discussion about whether 123 will have precedence over Hyde or whether Vienna Convention on International Treaties (which I understand the US has still not ratified, just as it has not yet ratified its loophole filled Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA) would come to our rescue, misses an essential point.

No matter what fallback provisions there are in the agreement, India is in no position to enforce this deal with the US, particularly as it is loaded with provisions that reduce India to a begging-buyer status. At the moment, India can in no way hit back, in case US decides to play games with us, such as 'post-goal shifting' (post agreement, that is, as it did in the case of the Tarapur 123). If anything, at present India's export to US is mainly 'technology-trained brains'. It is unlikely that India will be able to recall this particular commodity from the US the way US is capable of taking back -- by using or threatening to use force if necessary -- all fuel, technology and hardware supplied to India whenever it decides to terminate this agreement.

At least till we become economically strong enough to be able to stand up to the US, we should keep a safe (may be respectful) distance from getting into such one-sided deals. To become economically strong, we must indigenously develop all the requisite high technologies.

In the meanwhile we should attempt to get an honourable resolution to the issue regarding disposal of spent fuel piling up at Tarapur 1&2.

___________________________

Raj Malhotra,

This is In response to you post of 19 Sep 2007 06:48 pm regarding phases 2 and 3 of our nuclear power programme:

We should not expect the 3rd stage (thorium utilisation) to be commercial in less than 25 years from now. At best before that time actual technical feasibility of the U233 -Th cycle would have been proven in India through demonstration projects. I hasten to add that in my view, this is realistic and acceptable.

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

Postby Sanku » 20 Sep 2007 09:39

The below says it all

N-Deal: 'Nobody dictates to Congress party'

And soon afterwards

Kakodkar not to attend NSG meet on N-deal: Govt

IMVHO; the issue here is not whether Left has the guts to pull out if the deal goes ahead; from lefts stand point they have already demonstrated the ablility to push a hard line (both on this issue and others) and get away with it.

The real question is will Congress dare them? And if it does when will the next elections happen.

My take is congress will not dare them; and will not cause the dissolution of the house till it figures out that it is as ready as it can be before the next elections. When congress is ready they will move on the nuclear deal causing elections.

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

Postby Rye » 20 Sep 2007 09:41

AK not attending NSG maybe just so GoI can see whether the US keeps to "its word" since this govt. seems to depend on "trust" a lot.

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

Postby amit » 20 Sep 2007 09:46

Sanku wrote:When congress is ready they will move on the nuclear deal causing elections.


Sanku,

That's exactly my point. It's no longer a question of whether the Congress has guts or not. They've planted themselves in such a corner that they have to go forward with the deal or lose whatever little credibilty they have as a party capable of taking independent political decisions.

Once Congress decides it's ready to go ahead, then the question is, will the Left pull the rug?

And if they do pull the rug and we have elections then what happens to 123?

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

Postby Sanku » 20 Sep 2007 09:48

Rye wrote:AK not attending NSG maybe just so GoI can see whether the US keeps to "its word" since this govt. seems to depend on "trust" a lot.


It also provides the excuse to GoI that it is not the one doing the moving and shaking for domestic compulsions.

But your point raises a pretty interesting question: Can we "trust" the US to make a good deal on our behalf in the NSG? Despite what it gave us not being kosher? Seems like a leap of faith to me.

There is another possibilty to; the current GoI actually thinks that US has given them all they asked for (which is what GOTUS has been consistently saying); and it is the GoI which has decided that India's intrests are best served by the deal in current form with out the need for any further "goodies" in the deal.

I dont know which of the above scares me more.

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

Postby Sanku » 20 Sep 2007 09:53

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:When congress is ready they will move on the nuclear deal causing elections.


Sanku,

Once Congress decides it's ready to go ahead, then the question is, will the Left pull the rug?

And if they do pull the rug and we have elections then what happens to 123?


Hi Amit;

My guess is that left will pull the rug BUT Congress will try and operationalize the deal before it is forced to leave. Legally it can do so. ANd between the left pulling the rug and Dr Singh handing over charge; there will be a period of at least 4-5 months. Enough to get the deal done if you are hell bent on it.

By all indications; congress is hell bent on pushing through the deal at any cost; either to itself (the congress party and not its leaders) or to the nation or to the polity. However unlike you I dont think the compulsions are the ones created by its stubborn public stand. I dare say as Ramana and Achyara are begining to hint; there compulsions are from a external source rather than Indian; either that or their sense of India is completely at variance with the majority.

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

Postby Sanku » 20 Sep 2007 10:00

Just in case that there remained speculation on who is the real author; driver and benificary of the deal the emerging scenario and the haste shows us who ---

US fast tracks nuclear deal

123 pact must reach Congress soon: Boucher

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

Postby amit » 20 Sep 2007 10:00

Sanku wrote: I dare say as Ramana and Achyara are begining to hint; there compulsions are from a external source rather than Indian; either that or their sense of India is completely at variance with the majority.


If we do assume that there are external forces involved, would they be happy with a deal that may be overturned by the next government?

I wonder, if its only the Congress that "has been taken care of"? What about other potential stakeholders in the Indian political scene?

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

Postby Sanku » 20 Sep 2007 10:08

amit wrote:If we do assume that there are external forces involved, would they be happy with a deal that may be overturned by the next government?

I wonder, if its only the Congress that "has been taken care of"? What about other potential stakeholders in the Indian political scene?


I do not think they have the capabilty to "take care of" the entire congress let alone the political spectrum; however once the deal is done; all they have to make sure is that the next govt. does not pull it down. Pulling down the deal will be much harder (unless a strong; i.e. strong leadership; Govt comes to power with all majority) and consequently much easier for US to stall with useless promises and stuff.

The real damage would have been done by then. They were keeping their eyes open for one weak link in the chain; and once identified and broken; it becomes far more difficult to put the chain together again.

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

Postby bala » 20 Sep 2007 10:15

Sanatanan wrote:If anything, at present India's export to US is mainly 'technology-trained brains'.


This is the same nonsense that the Commie Oisleuses have peddled, they used to call them "cyber-coolies" now the genteel version of "technology-trained brains" (what exactly is this???) and compared to what? Please study the India's import/export basket of items before coming up with grand stmts belittling Intelligent Indians.
Last edited by bala on 20 Sep 2007 10:26, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Sanku » 20 Sep 2007 10:22

bala wrote:
Sanku wrote:If anything, at present India's export to US is mainly 'technology-trained brains'.


This is the same nonsense that the Commie Oisleuses have peddled, they used to call them "cyber-coolies" now the genteel version of "technology-trained brains" (what exactly is this???) and compared to what? Please study the India's import/export basket of items before coming up with grand stmts belittling Intelligent Indians.


Bala the quote you have attributed to me is not something I have said!! :shock: :eek: Can you please at least verify the author before launching on attacks?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest