Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 13 Apr 2008

RanjanRoy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: ether net

Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 13 Apr 2008

Postby RanjanRoy » 12 Apr 2008 23:32

Old Thread: HERE
_______________________________________________

ShauryaT wrote:
Thus, for example, another test is an absolute imperative to test a reworked thermonuclear weapon design. The one tested in May 1998, many scientists even here believe, fizzled out. The doubt is about whether or not the shock wave set off the ‘secondary’ (meaning, the store of thermonuclear fuel). Reading into the test data, the dissenting scientists who, incidentally, are in a majority, are convinced that most of the yield was due to the boosted fission trigger (or the ‘primary’) and that there was virtually no thermonuclear burn.
Who said this? When? Bharat Karnad. I have found public references of BK and Iyengar stating the above in 1999. So, what is this talk of a holier than thou attitude towards any Government official. When these things were out in the open at least since 1999.
He goes on to say the following:
Now consider the Indian situation. Just one of the five Indian May ’98 tests pertained to a thermonuclear device and that too is now suspect. Nevertheless, the information on innumerable performance variables available from just this one doubtful explosive test is deemed adequate by way of a database for sub-critical testing to facilitate production of newer, more advanced, thermonuclear weaponry! This level of self-confidence verging on scientific and technological hubris could be ignored were it not that it directly endangers the nuclear deterrent and national security in the long run by increasing the chances that any new and advanced weapons designs that might eventuate from Indian sub-criticals in the future will, in the absence of actual tests, run the risk of failing. And, in the larger context, that India may end up having an inventory full of supposedly ‘decisive’ nuclear weapons that do not work. Proof of performance of the weapons systems in the deterrent force will then be available only in time of war. By then it will be too late to matter one way or the other.

And then he says this:
The haste in signing this wretched treaty is foolhardy in the extreme. Three beneficial things will, however, happen were the Government of India (GOI) to not sign this treaty. It will buy the country time and the legal space to test further, should that become necessary, in order to realise a more survivable deterrent with greater lethality, continue levelling the strategic playing field, and afford New Delhi the leverage derived from the promise of eventual adherence to the treaty to more substantively establish India’s geopolitical role and global interests in the coming century.
These are enormous advantages not to be frittered or gifted away in return for something as evanescent as Washington’s goodwill and offers of loosened controls on credit and technology flows which, as will be argued here, will follow provided the GOI keeps unwaveringly to its economic reforms script. It would be gratuitous to expend India’s substantial bargaining power on something that is in the US’ trade and commercial interest to affect and which no administration in Washington will be able to resist doing anyway.
No, he is not talking about the 123, The above was in context of the CTBT in 2000. The man is unsparing with a single mission, to protect India’s interests. He goes on to say the following.


Any P-5 country, able to muster a majority in the verification council, can ask for and get an on-site inspection mandated under UN aegis of any facility or suspect installation in a signatory country. There is no protection against such deliberate harassment and policing measures. Go ask the Iraqis about the UN inspection teams searching for supposedly clandestine factories researching, developing and producing weapons of mass destruction!

Even a suggestion of CTBT, by the then officials of the GoI gets this man to react.
The earlier impression of the ‘security dialogue’ as going nowhere is giving way to a view of a fatal Indian compromise in the offing, which was strengthened by Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh’s lengthy interview to The Hindu (29 November 1999). In it, he made the case for India’s signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) soon, notwithstanding its rejection by the US Senate and its non-ratification by the other major nuclear weapons states, Russia and China.
The haste in signing this wretched treaty is foolhardy in the extreme.

The question for us, now, is the same as it was when the following was written in 2000.
the need for more tests if weapons in the megaton class or even 200 kiloton (kt) fusion warheads are to be developed, India will have to develop a suitable strategy to find a way around the CTBT to enable further testing without inviting a fresh round of sanctions and international opprobrium. In case India's nuclear warhead capability remains confined to 15 to 30 kt fission warheads, it will lead to the sub-optimal utilisation of India's meagre fissile material stockpile. With negotiations for the FMCT staring it in the face and the likelihood of an early agreement being reached, India would be hard put to stockpile adequate fissile stockpile for the total number of warheads that its retaliatory strategy and targeting philosophy may require. These are the tough issues confronting the development of a potent nuclear strategy. While there are no easy answers, a determined diplomatic stance and a tough negotiating position with some hard bargaining can achieve the desired results. The world is gradually getting used to the idea that a "cap, reduce, eliminate" policy is no longer feasible and that India's nuclear weapons, born primarily out of the need to safeguard national security, cannot now be rolled back.

The above para is not from BK but Gurmeet Kanwal. BK does not spare anyone and is not beholden to any political point of view. The man is either insane or a true patriot. It is time, we at BRF stop putting blind faith in whatever the GoI says and does and use our own mind and heart, if we can. If we cannot, we put faith in people, whom we trust.

The sad thing for me is what I call is the debating framework has been set in such a way that no matter, if or how we sign this agreement, India has lost one way or the other. If I were to say today that India should accept nothing less than FORMAL NWS status in the global world order, I am sure, I will be called an extremist, an H&D infatuated Paki and what not. When will we learn that the US is not going to give it to us, we will have to snatch it and if we cannot do it now then at least negotiate something with a CLEAR path to the cherished goal.

As we debate this agreement, the question and value of parity is almost lost and the only thing we debate here is if we should sign 123 or not and how. The US has in a master stroke invalidated the idea of an India as a global power, on par with other major powers.

Weak men and structures have been the reason for our fall in the past, Indians should recognize this pattern and correct them, instead of repeating the same old mistakes. We cannot say sign this deal now and say, we will change it later. Some things have a lasting impact on how we deal with the world. I am not ashamed, when India goes around with a begging bowl for support for a permanent UN seat, but it will not happen sweetly with the help of a begging bowl. The ONLY way this will happen is if, we have the will, capability and need to bring this order down and play on our own terms. I only wish that we had taken some effort from the very start learnt to play the great game, instead of living in utopia.
The gloves need to come off in the defense of the nation, there is no one or no institution above the nations interests.

Personally, I am hoping that the establishment scientists are under orders of the GoI to shut up, leaving only external and past members with the option to speak about the failed tests. If the TN test had indeed failed, it will most certainly not be in India’s interests to sign this deal, even if a Jekyl act is passed. (would not make sense). Surprised that some members want to shut up now, when the nations interests are under threat.

An eminently valuable post by ShauryaT is worth a second read.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 12 Apr 2008 23:43

ShauryaT wrote: Personally, I am hoping that the establishment scientists are under orders of the GoI to shut up, leaving only external and past members with the option to speak about the failed tests. If the TN test had indeed failed, it will most certainly not be in India’s interests to sign this deal, even if a Jekyl act is passed. (would not make sense). Surprised that some members want to shut up now, when the nations interests are under threat.

If you think that what your said is correct, this must also explain why Mr. PKI who voiced his concerns imed after POK-II didnt talked about the failed test during the negotiation of the deal ?

Just as you said, people should not shut up when nation interest are under threat, Dont you think Dr. PKI should have voiced his concerns at this time abt the failed test? He might not be alone by doing this, he could have garnered political support as well as other peoples support.. So what your thoughts on this?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Apr 2008 00:21

Kanson wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Personally, I am hoping that the establishment scientists are under orders of the GoI to shut up, leaving only external and past members with the option to speak about the failed tests. If the TN test had indeed failed, it will most certainly not be in India’s interests to sign this deal, even if a Jekyl act is passed. (would not make sense). Surprised that some members want to shut up now, when the nations interests are under threat.

If you think that what your said is correct, this must also explain why Mr. PKI who voiced his concerns imed after POK-II didnt talked about the failed test during the negotiation of the deal ?

Just as you said, people should not shut up when nation interest are under threat, Dont you think Dr. PKI should have voiced his concerns at this time abt the failed test? He might not be alone by doing this, he could have garnered political support as well as other peoples support.. So what your thoughts on this?
When trust and understanding are violated the result is your own will rebel against you.

This is right after the separation agreement:
"I have no objection to this deal as we are not losing anything," Iyengar told PTI. But he cautioned about some "fine prints" in the deal.

One thing is an "India specific" safeguard to be negotiated with IAEA. "We have to avoid any intrusive inspections by IAEA in the identified civilian facilities," he said. Secondly, India must ensure that the plutonium currently held in stocks and also bred inside its reactors is excluded from safeguards.

Iyengar also cautioned that India should not be carried away by guarantees of fuel supply to reactors as the suppliers can always increase the price of enriched uranium just as it is happening in the case of oil.

"Uranium price has already gone up three times," he said.

"I do not think India has run out of uranium ore. Only we must accelerate our uranium exploration programme," he added.


Scientists such as PKI, however respectful are NOT the people qualified to decide a nations nuclear posture and doctrine, IMO. Technical scientists, usually represent only a dimension of the posture. Indian nuclear security and posture requires a complete different type of skill set.

If PKI, did not oppose this deal out right after M2, I am not surprised for there are others, who did.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 00:21

Arun_S wrote:
Iyengar moderated his public views, but with-in walls of National Security Advisory Board he was not.


Sir, lets assume PKI roared inside the cave. Can ou enlighten us on the reply he got and his reactions to that ? When he become pacified ?, after this interaction ?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 00:28

ShauryaT wrote:
Kanson wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Personally, I am hoping that the establishment scientists are under orders of the GoI to shut up, leaving only external and past members with the option to speak about the failed tests. If the TN test had indeed failed, it will most certainly not be in India’s interests to sign this deal, even if a Jekyl act is passed. (would not make sense). Surprised that some members want to shut up now, when the nations interests are under threat.

If you think that what your said is correct, this must also explain why Mr. PKI who voiced his concerns imed after POK-II didnt talked about the failed test during the negotiation of the deal ?

Just as you said, people should not shut up when nation interest are under threat, Dont you think Dr. PKI should have voiced his concerns at this time abt the failed test? He might not be alone by doing this, he could have garnered political support as well as other peoples support.. So what your thoughts on this?
When trust and understanding are violated the result is your own will rebel against you.

This is right after the separation agreement:
"I have no objection to this deal as we are not losing anything," Iyengar told PTI. But he cautioned about some "fine prints" in the deal.

One thing is an "India specific" safeguard to be negotiated with IAEA. "We have to avoid any intrusive inspections by IAEA in the identified civilian facilities," he said. Secondly, India must ensure that the plutonium currently held in stocks and also bred inside its reactors is excluded from safeguards.

Iyengar also cautioned that India should not be carried away by guarantees of fuel supply to reactors as the suppliers can always increase the price of enriched uranium just as it is happening in the case of oil.

"Uranium price has already gone up three times," he said.

"I do not think India has run out of uranium ore. Only we must accelerate our uranium exploration programme," he added.


Scientists such as PKI, however respectful are NOT the people qualified to decide a nations nuclear posture and doctrine, IMO. Technical scientists, usually represent only a dimension of the posture. Indian nuclear security and posture requires a complete different type of skill set.

If PKI, did not oppose this deal out right after M2, I am not surprised for there are others, who did.
What sir, you are back pedalling... you only quoted PKI in your post of voicing his concern. You also said, in service members are ordered to shutup and past are not... Now, the most prominent one of past/retired lot is not showing any sign of talking abt the failed test. You know not every scientiest have access to the strategic data and only core group is supposed to have access, so why talk abt other scientist...

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Apr 2008 01:39

Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
Iyengar moderated his public views, but with-in walls of National Security Advisory Board he was not.


Sir, lets assume PKI roared inside the cave. Can ou enlighten us on the reply he got and his reactions to that ? When he become pacified ?, after this interaction ?

I had posted a summery of that episode few times since ~2002. It should be in the BRF archives.

To summarize again:
NSAB memebers tried to bring together PKI and RC face to face to settle the issue. No matter how much effort was put, R.Chidambram refused to face PKIyanger. His final response to NSAB was a flat NO to meet or respond to PKI. Just a derisive retort to the effect of questioning PKI's competence and background: "What does Iyanger knows of chemistry?". This to the person who was Director BARC, Head of Department of Atomic Energy, and AEC Chairman. { Actually, RC dabbles in neutron crystallography! PKI knows a heck of a lot more radio-chemistry than RC}

Surely BARC is/was full of idiots like R.Chidambrum who knows only a little Chemistry and nothing else.


Sorry for using this metaphor but RChidambrum's literally "Brahmannical" derision of anyone who does not agree with his "Creative Brahm Vision" is legendary, even after his "Creative Brahm" fizzle out for every one to see at Pokhran-II and CAT Indore. But he eschews reality to believe His "Bhram"{confusion} is actually "Brahma" {the God of Gods} you know what I mean.

PKI's son S. Krishnagopal, has been the beneficiary of MANY "VERY special treatment/favors" from the DAE, works in the accelerator division in CAT! He's still a part of the DAE. I'm surprised at the amount of information PKI candidly stated in public about S1. There's a limit to which he can go, especially bearing in mind the above stated "constraints". I hope that Kanson is mature enough to understand this!

However, it may be noted that despite these "constraints", PKI has never retracted his comments of S1 being a flop as a TN device, and was only a boosted fission device - i.e. only the primary performed! Can Kanson enlighten us with any evidence where PKI has claimed at a later date that S1 was a glowing success as a TN device?

----------------
Corrected some errors. -Arun_S
Last edited by Arun_S on 13 Apr 2008 02:04, edited 1 time in total.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Apr 2008 01:52

Kanson wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
Kanson wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Personally, I am hoping that the establishment scientists are under orders of the GoI to shut up, leaving only external and past members with the option to speak about the failed tests. If the TN test had indeed failed, it will most certainly not be in India’s interests to sign this deal, even if a Jekyl act is passed. (would not make sense). Surprised that some members want to shut up now, when the nations interests are under threat.

If you think that what your said is correct, this must also explain why Mr. PKI who voiced his concerns imed after POK-II didnt talked about the failed test during the negotiation of the deal ?

Just as you said, people should not shut up when nation interest are under threat, Dont you think Dr. PKI should have voiced his concerns at this time abt the failed test? He might not be alone by doing this, he could have garnered political support as well as other peoples support.. So what your thoughts on this?
When trust and understanding are violated the result is your own will rebel against you.

This is right after the separation agreement:
"I have no objection to this deal as we are not losing anything," Iyengar told PTI. But he cautioned about some "fine prints" in the deal.

One thing is an "India specific" safeguard to be negotiated with IAEA. "We have to avoid any intrusive inspections by IAEA in the identified civilian facilities," he said. Secondly, India must ensure that the plutonium currently held in stocks and also bred inside its reactors is excluded from safeguards.

Iyengar also cautioned that India should not be carried away by guarantees of fuel supply to reactors as the suppliers can always increase the price of enriched uranium just as it is happening in the case of oil.

"Uranium price has already gone up three times," he said.

"I do not think India has run out of uranium ore. Only we must accelerate our uranium exploration programme," he added.


Scientists such as PKI, however respectful are NOT the people qualified to decide a nations nuclear posture and doctrine, IMO. Technical scientists, usually represent only a dimension of the posture. Indian nuclear security and posture requires a complete different type of skill set.

If PKI, did not oppose this deal out right after M2, I am not surprised for there are others, who did.
What sir, you are back pedalling... you only quoted PKI in your post of voicing his concern. You also said, in service members are ordered to shutup and past are not... Now, the most prominent one of past/retired lot is not showing any sign of talking abt the failed test. You know not every scientiest have access to the strategic data and only core group is supposed to have access, so why talk abt other scientist...

Kanson: Not correct. From I'st hand account with Air Chief Marshal SK.Mehra (the first wielder of Indian N weapons and later NSAB member) did that, and Santhanam the leader of Pok-II team did. How much more credible source anyone want beyond these two officers?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 01:56

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
Iyengar moderated his public views, but with-in walls of National Security Advisory Board he was not.


Sir, lets assume PKI roared inside the cave. Can ou enlighten us on the reply he got and his reactions to that ? When he become pacified ?, after this interaction ?

I had posted a summery of that episode few times since ~2002. It should be in the BRF archives.

To summarize again:
NSAB memebers tried to bring together PKI and RC face to face to settle the issue. No matter how much effort was put, R.Chidambram refused to face PKIyanger. His final response to NSAB was a flat NO to meet or respond to PKI. Just a derisive retort to the effect of questioning PKI's competence and background: "What does Iyanger know of chemistry?". This to the person who was Director BARC, Head of Department of Atomic Energy, and AEC Chairman.

Surely BARC is/was full of idiots like R.Chidambrum who knows only a little Chemistry and nothing else.

Sir thanks for the reply. A small correction, actually PKI is from chemistry background...if he had really asked that question, he would have asked, What PKI knows none other than chemistry... But sir, you see, PKI also told that POK-I was a fizzle, but in reality it seems to be otherwise...Why wuld have he said that..If i not wrong, RC involved in POK-I design too...

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 02:00

Arun_S wrote: Kanson: Not correct. From I'st hand account with Air Chief Marshal SK.Mehra (the first wielder of Indian N weapons and later NSAB member) did that, and Santhanam the leader of Pok-II team did. How much more credible source anyone want beyond these two officers?
Sorry, could you eloborate...I guess both doesnt belong to N core team.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Apr 2008 02:20

Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote: Kanson: Not correct. From I'st hand account with Air Chief Marshal SK.Mehra (the first wielder of Indian N weapons and later NSAB member) did that, and Santhanam the leader of Pok-II team did. How much more credible source anyone want beyond these two officers?
Sorry, could you eloborate...I guess both doesnt belong to N core team.

Boss what is your point?
To know S1 was pure fizzle does not require one to be in N Core team. The Pok-II team knew what yield to expect before experiment was conducted. To say the leader of the Pok-II did not know what to expect and what yielded, and that it grossly underperformed and he kept quit?

Kanson, about the Chemistry deal I corrected my old post to add PKI's credentials in Radio Chem, almost the same time you posted. It was a while ago in 2002, I will have to look into BRF Archive to find out the exact quote.

ACM Mehra and Santhanam were witness/privy to the face off RC had with the rest of the NSAB.

ACM Mehra was the main end user and Santhanam was very much part of the OVERALL design team and a major stake holder. He know the results of the S1 flop quite intimately!

This is where AVB let the Nation down and fell for (or was intimidated by) RC's bullshit hook, line, and sinker! A simple vote at this stage would/might have resulted in a new series of tests.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 02:29

But sir, you see, PKI also told that POK-I was a fizzle, but in reality it seems to be otherwise...Why wuld have he said that..If i not wrong, RC involved in POK-I design too...


Arun, PKI also stated that POK-I is a fizzle, but the truth seems to be otherwise...So do you think he could have commited mistake at that time..

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Apr 2008 02:36

No comment because of many reasons least of which is also because very little info is available on Pok-I.

I would rather focus on the subject matter of the discussion on Pok-II and India current 360 degree Credible N deterrence.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Apr 2008 02:42

Kanson wrote: What sir, you are back pedalling... you only quoted PKI in your post of voicing his concern. You also said, in service members are ordered to shutup and past are not... Now, the most prominent one of past/retired lot is not showing any sign of talking abt the failed test. You know not every scientiest have access to the strategic data and only core group is supposed to have access, so why talk abt other scientist...
Kanson: I said PKI went public about TN fizzle as early as 1999. I said, I hope, the scientists have been ordered to shut up by GoI for the meaning of the only other possiblity is too dreadful and if it is anything close to the other reality then those scientists should be rightly called traitors. Since, we do not know, at least in public, we should reserve judgment.

This is not just about what one scientist knew et al, this is much bigger. I had a question in an earlier page. Was the political leadership misled? If the political leadership decided that it was best not to talk about the truth about the TN test then it is easy to understand.

Understand what Arun is saying and who these NSAB players were and their roles.

There is no backtracking on any of my earlier posts.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 13 Apr 2008 02:44

Just a clarification.

Dr. Chidambaram has four main domains of specialisation:

1. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
2. Neutron Diffraction & Hydrogen bonding (this has to do with crystals as well - don't ask me how, I have no idea).
3. High Pressure & Shock Wave physics
4. "Quasi Crystals"

Most of his major cited papers are on neutron diffraction, but on the whole he has contributed significantly to the above four domains. This is a matter of public record.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 02:46

Fine Arun...little info i learnt is..from beginning there were some rough patches between PKI & RC...RC did felt that PKI try to discredit POK-I and the samething followed in POK-II...If someone didnt took acount of both the views might be misleaded as per my opinion.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 02:54

Arun:

PKI's son S. Krishnagopal, has been the beneficiary of MANY "VERY special treatment/favors" from the DAE, works in the accelerator division in CAT! He's still a part of the DAE. I'm surprised at the amount of information PKI candidly stated in public about S1. There's a limit to which he can go, especially bearing in mind the above stated "constraints".
Without knowing the background of PKI and PKI constraints of seeking speical treatement for his son or whatever...How you could tell confirmly that what the info he released is credible...

I know this is not the good question... let me ask this any...

ACM Mehra and Santhanam were witness/privy to the face off RC had with the rest of the NSAB.

ACM Mehra was the main end user and Santhanam was very much part of the OVERALL design team and a major stake holder. He know the results of the S1 flop quite intimately!
Taking your info as right...You know this info is not new...How come only after the deal you went ballistic and started claiming that S1 is fizzle...Before i guess your statements are in support of RC's assesment of S1...

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 03:04

ShauryaT wrote:
Kanson wrote: What sir, you are back pedalling... you only quoted PKI in your post of voicing his concern. You also said, in service members are ordered to shutup and past are not... Now, the most prominent one of past/retired lot is not showing any sign of talking abt the failed test. You know not every scientiest have access to the strategic data and only core group is supposed to have access, so why talk abt other scientist...
Kanson: I said PKI went public about TN fizzle as early as 1999. I said, I hope, the scientists have been ordered to shut up by GoI for the meaning of the only other possiblity is too dreadful and if it is anything close to the other reality then those scientists should be rightly called traitors. Since, we do not know, at least in public, we should reserve judgment.
Reserve judgement on what ?

This is not just about what one scientist knew et al, this is much bigger. I had a question in an earlier page. Was the political leadership misled? If the political leadership decided that it was best not to talk about the truth about the TN test then it is easy to understand.
Ok, as you talked abt political leader... Can i have few questions...Do you believe ABV ordered a fresh test by 2002/2003 ?

There is no backtracking on any of my earlier posts.
I see.. :wink: :D

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Apr 2008 03:07

Kanson wrote:Arun:

PKI's son S. Krishnagopal, has been the beneficiary of MANY "VERY special treatment/favors" from the DAE, works in the accelerator division in CAT! He's still a part of the DAE. I'm surprised at the amount of information PKI candidly stated in public about S1. There's a limit to which he can go, especially bearing in mind the above stated "constraints".
Without knowing the background of PKI and PKI constraints of seeking speical treatement for his son or whatever...How you could tell confirmly that what the info he released is credible...

I know this is not the good question... let me ask this any...

ACM Mehra and Santhanam were witness/privy to the face off RC had with the rest of the NSAB.

ACM Mehra was the main end user and Santhanam was very much part of the OVERALL design team and a major stake holder. He know the results of the S1 flop quite intimately!
Taking your info as right...You know this info is not new...How come only after the deal you went ballistic and started claiming that S1 is fizzle...Before i guess your statements are in support of RC's assesment of S1...

Not true, I went from supporter, to skeptic to ardent supporter of this deal till 3rd qtr of last year.

But then some thing prompted me to spend time to study and analyze deeper, and found something that could be cross validation from other datapoints and methods, and here I have evolved to my present position on this subject. And I am trying to dissiminate my findings here.

I was not born with all the knowledge at this birth. Entropy, time and learning always grows.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 03:18

Arun_S wrote:Not true, I went from supporter, to skeptic to ardent supporter of this deal till 3rd qtr of last year.

But then some thing prompted me to spend time to study and analyze deeper, and found something that could be cross validation from other datapoints and methods, and here I have evolved to my present position on this subject. And I am trying to dissiminate my findings here.

I was not born with all the knowledge at this birth. Entropy, time and learning always grows.
Thanks for the reply. Since you claimed you changed your position more than once...and feel that grwoth is inevitable...do you feel there are enough data points to make one more course correction if there is further available of information ? (Anything which leads to good one will be better for the country, isnt it?)

And wht type of messg you leave for the people who follow you ?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Apr 2008 03:34

Kanson wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
Kanson wrote: What sir, you are back pedalling... you only quoted PKI in your post of voicing his concern. You also said, in service members are ordered to shutup and past are not... Now, the most prominent one of past/retired lot is not showing any sign of talking abt the failed test. You know not every scientiest have access to the strategic data and only core group is supposed to have access, so why talk abt other scientist...
Kanson: I said PKI went public about TN fizzle as early as 1999. I said, I hope, the scientists have been ordered to shut up by GoI for the meaning of the only other possiblity is too dreadful and if it is anything close to the other reality then those scientists should be rightly called traitors. Since, we do not know, at least in public, we should reserve judgment.
Reserve judgement on what ?

This is not just about what one scientist knew et al, this is much bigger. I had a question in an earlier page. Was the political leadership misled? If the political leadership decided that it was best not to talk about the truth about the TN test then it is easy to understand.
Ok, as you talked abt political leader... Can i have few questions...Do you believe ABV ordered a fresh test by 2002/2003 ?

There is no backtracking on any of my earlier posts.
I see.. :wink: :D

I do not know, if ABV ordered a fresh test in 02/03. It is unlikely, as it is the parakram period and post parakram, they got into NSSP mode.

Think a little before going on a political witch hunt. There are questions being raised on why ABV did not do what and when and the opportunities he had to do so.

Any government which goes and tests from now on has to carefully consider the geo-political situation, especially the economic impact of tests. I will myself support tests, only if they take into account the impact of further tests on the economy and a plan to mitigate impact. Opportunites will have to be created, further tests will have to be planned/gamed. Also remember, the ONE test we need to do is for a TN weapon in the 100-300 KT range, in an MIRV suitable warhead design. A pre-requisite for that test is the maturity of the MIRV program. While we are at it, it is necessary that we do a test in at least the 3 MT weaponized warhead range also.

A perfect opportunity for the same, would be pre-signing the FMCT.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 13 Apr 2008 03:43, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 03:39

ShauryaT wrote: Kanson, There are some here, who try to use their words carefully. You are putting across questions in what an attempt to trip? If you want to understand events and issues, please do some research of your own and then ask questions.

If you have something to share then share it without trying to come across as a smart alick.
sorry ShauryaT, if my post came that way...i'm not here for hijacking your post or words...

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Apr 2008 03:44

Kanson wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Kanson, There are some here, who try to use their words carefully. You are putting across questions in what an attempt to trip? If you want to understand events and issues, please do some research of your own and then ask questions.

If you have something to share then share it without trying to come across as a smart alick.
sorry ShauryaT, if my post came that way...i'm not here for hijacking your post or words...
Kanson: Apologies from my side, I snapped. I have edited my post.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Apr 2008 04:00

Kanson wrote:Taking your info as right...You know this info is not new...How come only after the deal you went ballistic and started claiming that S1 is fizzle...Before i guess your statements are in support of RC's assesment of S1...

To add little further on my position:
1. Pls see my answer to bala 09 Apr 2008 09:47 pm on this thread!
2. IIRC I have never categorically stated that the S1 test successfully validated TN device.
3. New and undeniable facts have been continuously filtering out, and while we all rejoiced at the initial news that was fed to the public that S1 was a success, one has to reconcile oneself to FACTS, however unpleasant they might be!
Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Not true, I went from supporter, to skeptic to ardent supporter of this deal till 3rd qtr of last year.

But then some thing prompted me to spend time to study and analyze deeper, and found something that could be cross validation from other datapoints and methods, and here I have evolved to my present position on this subject. And I am trying to dissiminate my findings here.

I was not born with all the knowledge at this birth. Entropy, time and learning always grows.
Thanks for the reply. Since you claimed you changed your position more than once...and feel that grwoth is inevitable...do you feel there are enough data points to make one more course correction if there is further available of information ? (Anything which leads to good one will be better for the country, isnt it?)

Yes, there is more than enough datapoint that no other possibility exist to change assessment. That coupled with the serious repercussion to India and its future children passionately drives me on this Righteous Battle.

BTW, POK-1 yield was ~12 kT against a design yield of 20-25 KT. This doesn't make it a huge success. So, PKI as team leader of POK-1 was not wrong here. Further, as a weapon, its size and configuration would have made it a major flop. As a PNE, since it moved a lot of earth, it may be have been OK, though the use of PNE's as a generic concept (though popular in certain circles at that point of time) is hugely debatable.

Kanson wrote:"Without knowing the background of PKI and PKI constraints of seeking speical treatement for his son or whatever...How you could tell confirmly that what the info released is credible...

I know this is not the good question... let me ask this any... "

The fact that PKI has been part of the DAE hierarchy and hugely benefited from it is undisputed. Despite this, if he stated that S1 was a FLOP, shows that he was not merely stating the fact that was known almost immediately after the S1 test, but was also reflecting a view of other influential stakeholders and active participants in the tests. The fact that PKI has never withdrawn his statement about S1, says a lot. This goes way beyond some ego clash between PKI and RC! If PKI stayed silent about the nuclear deal, there were other considerations...........

Kanson wrote:And what type of messg you leave for the people who follow you ?

My message to everyone is:
DON'T SIGN THE 123/NSG DEAL! It is a death trap for India's National Sovereignty; and with that the future of Indian people and Indian civilization!

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 13 Apr 2008 04:07

get india to sign 123.

attack iran and raise oil prices higher

do brisk business selling n-reactors to india as oil is too expensive

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 13 Apr 2008 04:17

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote:And what type of messg you leave for the people who follow you ?

My message to everyone is:
DON'T SIGN THE 123/NSG DEAL! It is a death trap for India's National Sovereignty; and with that the future of Indian people and Indian civilization!


Notice that my position has changed from:
    "Sign 123 after Indian parliament signs into law a Anti-Hyde (Jackell Act)", to
    "An ABSOLUTE REFUSAL TO SIGN 123 /NSG." That is because have figured out there is absolutely no doubt that at a later date India will rightfully get to own the whole store not just the candy that is being proffered in this 123.
Last edited by Arun_S on 13 Apr 2008 04:20, edited 2 times in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 04:19

ShauryaT wrote: Kanson: Apologies from my side, I snapped. I have edited my post.
No problem. Sometimes i too felt that i could have made my post little more diplomatic..Since we are not seeing each other, there is every chance of misunderstading and also writing these things in haste. Its happy to see that your are taking it midly. Thanks for your reply. And sorry, once again if my post meant that way.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 13 Apr 2008 04:36

Neshant wrote:get india to sign 123.

attack iran and raise oil prices higher

do brisk business selling n-reactors to india as oil is too expensive


Everyone, together, say G - N - E - P.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 13 Apr 2008 04:55

Arun_S wrote: BTW, POK-1 yield was ~12 kT against a design yield of 20-25 KT. This doesn't make it a huge success. So, PKI as team leader of POK-1 was not wrong here. Further, as a weapon, its size and configuration would have made it a major flop. As a PNE, since it moved a lot of earth, it may be have been OK, though the use of PNE's as a generic concept (though popular in certain circles at that point of time) is hugely debatable.
:D If i'm not wrong, on POK-I PKI gave the value as low as 8KT, again Raja Ramanna later claimed that the design tested was weaponised. Your claim of 20-25KT appears to me as mischievous. No offence though :)

IIRC I have never categorically stated that the S1 test successfully validated TN device.

Thats a huge understatement. RC said the yeild can be upto ~ 200kt, but you increased that stock to 300 Kt And all the latest agni 3 diagrams show them equipped with TN device whereas no offical statement indicates any particular device. Thats stamped your signature that TN is authentic. No two ways about it.


The fact that PKI has been part of the DAE hierarchy and hugely benefited from it is undisputed. Despite this, if he stated that S1 was a FLOP, shows that he was not merely stating the fact that was known almost immediately after the S1 test, but was also reflecting a view of other influential stakeholders and active participants in the tests. The fact that PKI has never withdrawn his statement about S1, says a lot

Thats shows that there is not much credibility in his assesment. Instead of reflecting one can say he is influencing the views of others as his credibility is at stake. Further, if you notice, he only raised that issue, whenever it helped him. Not raising at the appropriate time during deal in influencing the decision, what hes going to achieve by not talking abt this. One can say, he used that to his advantage. Thats all. Demonizing RC all the way and giving excuses for PKI on everything is not a balanced view in my opinion.

Yes, there is more than enough datapoint that no other possibility exist to change assessment. That coupled with the serious repercussion to India and its future children passionately drives me on this Righteous Battle.
Remember, growth is inevitable. Only permanent thing on earth is Change. :wink: I hope the light bestows on everyone when the time comes.

Kanson wrote:And what type of messg you leave for the people who follow you ?

Arun_S wrote:My message to everyone is:
DON'T SIGN THE 123/NSG DEAL! It is a death trap for India's National Sovereignty; and with that the future of Indian people and Indian civilization!


As for as I'm concerned I go with any decision where Indian interest is safeguarded and has better prosperity guaranteed.
Last edited by Kanson on 13 Apr 2008 06:00, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 13 Apr 2008 05:17

Kanson wrote:And what type of messg you leave for the people who follow you ?

Arun_S wrote:My message to everyone is:
DON'T SIGN THE 123/NSG DEAL! It is a death trap for India's National Sovereignty; and with that the future of Indian people and Indian civilization!


Search for the truth always.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 13 Apr 2008 08:19

Those heady days at the Age
M J Akbar’s exit from The Asian Age, the newspaper he founded in 1994, has once again brought into sharp focus the nexus between corporate, media and politicians.
By Seema Mustafa
It is not often that one gets to participate in the starting of a newspaper. I was particularly lucky to have experienced this twice, once with The Telegraph in 1982 and again in The Asian Age in 1997. Both were started by M J Akbar, and while I stayed in The Telegraph for just over four years, my tenure with the Asian Age stretched across a decade. Both were heady experiences.

Akbar had already established his reputation as an editor with the Sunday, the cover stories of which are still talked about. Jagannath Mishra drooling over a large morsel of food, a portrait of Raj Narain strung upside down on the cover brought in a new journalism of courage and irreverence. No one was too big, no one was too small to be written about and Sunday was a must reading for all of us aspiring to make a mark in one of the greatest professions in the world: journalism.

The Asian Age was nearly three years old when I joined to help with the edit and op-ed pages, and then went on to manage the bureau and the news reporting. Akbar was managing everything, from news, to marketing, to circulation, to finances, and at times we thought he would collapse from sheer exhaustion, made that much worse by the tension and strain of bringing out a daily newspaper. The office was two tiny rooms in a building near Connaught Place. There were just about four to five reporters, mostly raw hands, there was no city edition of the newspaper and frankly a lesser man would have on any given day at the time thrown up his hands and said: enough, no more, I am opting out.

To make matters worse, the rumours circulating about the newspaper were even worse. It will collapse any day, they said, it has strange financing, they insisted, all of them, journalists, politicians and others nodding their heads wisely as they demonstrated their complete ignorance. In what I think was a very clever move, Akbar had borrowed from the west a model of franchising the newspaper to different business houses. Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata - where the circulation at the time had soared to over two lakhs because of Akbar’s old association with the city - were all in the hands of different businessmen who bore the losses and of course would get the profits. Needless to say they only bore losses in the initial years and slowly backed out, leaving the newspaper to Akbar and at that time his very trusted friend, Rama Reddy, to run. In fact Reddy, the little known proprietor of the Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad, had found his golden goose in Akbar who brought him into what can be called the media mainstream.

The Bangalore edition was started, Gujarat was started, London was doing well and the newspaper gradually acquired a profile. A small newspaper, The Asian Age set itself apart by reviving traditional journalism, the news story that was written without fear or favour, the absence of holy cows, the insistence that it would be independent and true to the profession. The salaries were abysmal but the space and the freedom was tremendous. We told reporters wishing to join in those days, come here if you want to be a journalist; do not bother if all that you are looking for is money. And they came eventually, many taking pay cuts because they wanted to work under MJ Akbar, and learn from the experience. It was a tough experience, as he was a hands-on editor and was particularly focused on the desk where he brought in young novices and trained them from scratch.

The paper grew, a Delhi edition started, a tabloid started, the Sunday magazine started looking even better, and the newspaper became a must read for diplomatic and defence circles in Delhi. Instead of not even being looked at, it became the first newspaper for many in senior positions, as it was the only newspaper in the national capital questioning the establishment through its reports. Akbar gave the space, and rarely questioned our judgement. He kept a hawk’s eye on the newspaper, however, but once assured that the news item was factual, honest, and not planted he did not intervene.

The Asian Age became a journalist’s dream, a tiny oasis in a media world driven by advertisements and TRP ratings. It seemed too good to last. But then Akbar and Reddy decided to open the Chennai edition. Reddy insisted that it be called the Deccan Chronicle, maintaining that this would help tie up advertisement and other revenues in the south. Made sense and DC it was, but set up entirely by Akbar. He virtually camped in Chennai for days, visiting Delhi occasionally, and fine-tuned the newspaper to a point where it broke the Hindu monopoly and in less than two years crossed the three lakh mark. It was phenomenal. And with this turn around came the ABC figures, and the Asian Age/DC stabilized to finally, after 15 long years of toil and trouble, become a stable newspaper that was ready to take on the world. The editor, with Reddy in tow, starting talking of revamping our Bangalore and Mumbai editions and it was clear that the newspaper could now only grow.

The newspaper started taking up issues. We wrote extensively on the Kargil war, and while the reporting made the government furious, it earned us new respect and admiration. I still remember that moment which journalism is all about when we were told that the soldiers posted in Jammu and Kashmir had asked for the Asian Age to be flown to them. That was worth all the criticism and the attacks we were facing. I must add here that the attack often took a personal form and was cheap and absolutely unethical. But we had all decided to ignore this, and let the truth speak for itself. Akbar tells us he felt the pressure, when the NDA was in power, and now of course even more when the Congress is in power as its leaders find it even more difficult to accept criticism than the BJP.

The India-US civilian nuclear energy deal: The Asian Age was the only newspaper that stayed the course in opposing the deal and pointing out that it was totally against the interests of India. The newspaper did its job and gave the space to all those who were being blacked out by the other media. The strategic experts, the nuclear scientists, commentators, politicians all drifted to The Asian Age where they found that they had a voice. To cut a long, long story short, the pressure on the newspaper was immense. It cannot be imagined. They tried to get us, but could not. The days and nights were tense, but the people got a voice. The political parties took it up, and the rest is history. One little newspaper showed that by just staying the course, reporting the truth, and giving the people a voice you can change history. Parliament rejected the nuclear deal, and the government today stands completely isolated.

It is not easy for editors today to take this position. It is not easy, as the big media is controlled by the big industry and the nexus between the corporate and the politicians and the media is deep and sinister. There are also not many editors of any calibre left, and it is difficult to even count them on the fingers of one hand. Business persons are editors today, while true journalists of the status of Akbar are being eased out. The Congress leaders smarting over the government’s defeat on the nuclear deal managed to kill a newspaper, but they have failed to still the voice.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 13 Apr 2008 08:42


Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 13 Apr 2008 08:47

Edited some typo mistakes and small edits: Corrections marked in violet color.
********************************************************

Arun_S wrote:-The credibility of Katare's post may be best summarized by his statement "Hyde act is not binding for India we are not signing off on hyde act...." . This is spouting the same hackneyed and tattered "logic", and that has been discredit across the spectrum from Rice and Boucher, to nkumar's post.


That is a statement of fact but it seems like you are under intense sense of fear and perceived weakness of India as described by your following message -

My message to everyone is:
DON'T SIGN THE 123/NSG DEAL! It is a death trap for India's National Sovereignty; and with that the future of Indian people and Indian civilization!


My friend India and its civilization is not some piddi which would be destroyed in a puff of 123-hyde act. Have some confidence in your nation, its institutions and civilization. Islam khatre mein type mentalit only isolates and brings misery nothing else. Anyhow India has right to terminate this treaty at anytime in future, hope you knew that.

Arun_S wrote:-There are however a number of misleading issues and arguments raised by him that contradict his initial salvo, some of which I respond here:

Katare wrote:Civilian nuclear deal would increase India's indigenous capacity manifold by bringing new capital, technology and management practices. Budget support and constraints would only go down as more commercial money would be available for commercial purposes and goI could focus on strategic research. New designs would certainly take years to master and would require hand-holding which would actually be immensely helpful and learning experience for Indian scientists. Productivity gains through infusion of new/western technology, management practices and capital is how developing countries manage to grow much faster than developed countries.


1. This is nothing more than "toothless waffle". Forgetting for the moment of spending capital investment in generating electricity from other cheaper energy source that require less investment and shorter gestation period ; the civilian nuclear deal would in principle increase India's indigenous capacity. However, factoring in the price of the electricity generated, would such an exercise would be un-economical even in the short-medium term and prohibitively costly in the long term. The is purely from an economic standpoint and does not take into account any strategic ramifications. Strategic ramifications OTOH are dealt in later part of this rather long post.


Arun you are now mixing up issues and changing original arguments by conveniently (or unintentionally) not quoting your initial comment but quoting my answer to it. Nuclear power economics is well debated and researched area and would require separate discussion. If that is an issue than what is the need for domestic civilian nuclear research FBR etc? Wouldn’t the same “thought of argumentâ€

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Postby merlin » 13 Apr 2008 09:52

JEM, I'm surprised at your stance in wanting to keep GoI and its supporters as holy cows not to be touched. Same stance as Sunil. That's very unfortunate. This particular government has refused to come clean on the deal and has indulged in all sorts of tactics to discredit opposers of the deal, then why shouldn't those anti-deal do the same?

I'm always surprised at the "support your government at all times" stance, even when its clear that they are in the wrong.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 13 Apr 2008 10:22

And best part was what the PM said in public that all those who are patriots will support the deal and thereby implying that all retd. scientists/ former diplomats/editors/ordinary citizens who oppose this deal on its demerits are traitors !! Here also on BRF, it was the pro-deal folks who started the derision business - the anti-deal posters were called idiots, no-brainers and EBs !!

Can't the members use our intellectual PM's logic and call all those supporting the deal as traitors !!! (Though I have never called him a traitor, IMO, he genuinely believes in that this deal will help Indian economy but his problem is that he doesn't figure in the strategic costs of this deal). Sorry but no one is holy saint here, no automatic assumption of wisdom on anybody's part.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 13 Apr 2008 10:31

> My friend India and its civilization is not some piddi which would be
> destroyed in a puff of 123-hyde act. Have some confidence in your
> nation,


Open your eyes. There is no objective of 123-hyde other than to put a leash on India's nuclear self-sufficiency and ambitions. That is the only reason the act exists.

The last 27 years prior to 1998 does not inspire confidence. It was pure sillyness that was fortunately broken with great courage in 1998. Lets not be going back down that route where treaties (signed or "implied") and congames played by foreign nations kept India in a bind.

Make it plain, there are going to be no treaties. If they want the reactor business in India, they should sign a few treaties drafted by India.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 13 Apr 2008 11:05

nkumar/merlin,

I don't think JEM is protecting or we treat them (GoI/pro deal folks) as holy cow or holy saint, I think his advise is about personal attacks against distinguished personalities based on limited knowledge of members. Everyone is free to attack views, issues, actions and arguments from all side but with in a general decorum of decency. His advise as I understand is not about trating them as holy cow or holy saints but againsts calling them traitors, thugs and other names.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 13 Apr 2008 11:21

Neshant,

I have my eyes open for few decades now looking, learning and assimilating information. I have seen this kind of arguments every time there is a major shift in India's policy or a major decision is taken.

India is being sold out, doomed, slaved or our future is capped by traitors/thugs were the same arguments when we opened our economy or when we signed GATT or later WTO. Those were the pre TN Seshan time these slogans were painted all over the building walls and nukkads. Now in changed times they appear on the forum threads and blogs but like they say more we change more we stay the same.

These arguments were even more common in 70s and 80s, they were used even when India was signing for a small loan with WB or IMF or giving a license to a foreign company. So nothing new here for me, been there seen it many times. almost always it turns out that action is better than status-quo.

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

Postby svinayak » 13 Apr 2008 12:03

Katare wrote:Neshant,

I have my eyes open for few decades now looking, learning and assimilating information. I have seen this kind of arguments every time there is a major shift in India's policy or a major decision is taken.

India is being sold out, doomed, slaved or our future is capped by traitors/thugs were the same arguments when we opened our economy or when we signed GATT or later WTO. Those were the pre TN Seshan time these slogans were painted all over the building walls and nukkads. Now in changed times they appear on the forum threads and blogs but like they say more we change more we stay the same.

These arguments were even more common in 70s and 80s, they were used even when India was signing for a small loan with WB or IMF or giving a license to a foreign company. So nothing new here for me, been there seen it many times. almost always it turns out that action is better than status-quo.


Lot of decisions were made by Indian govt before in the 70s,80s which were in majority and had strong political support. THis deal has specific problems. It is being done by a political weak govt which does not have political support for this specific deal

Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 708
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Postby Santosh » 13 Apr 2008 12:29

Katare: Arun's point is still valid - who will arbitrate the deal in a unbiased manner in case of a difference in opinion? And there is bound to be a difference in interpretation since US is litigatious as where as we are simple onlee. Might as well invest the billions in alternative energy sources. This deal is not about civilian nuclear power any more.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 13 Apr 2008 12:44

Acharya and Santosh,

I agree with both of you. The current govt has little credibility and even less political support base. Hyde act has been passed and it will stay even if this govt doesn't sign the 123 agreement. The best course of option for MMS would be to wait for the next govt to come and take it up but by that time Bush would have gone and next president, if it is Obama type, would not toch this deal with a six yard long pole.

As of Santhos's point about arbitration and differences, I have always conceded that USA is an unreliable partner and history has numerous examples of it breaking its promises. But I beleive the cost would be marginal or less for us to go with the deal than not to go with it.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests