Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 541
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Postby Avarachan » 31 May 2008 02:45

ramana wrote:The removal of MJ Akbar from Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle, has sent a chill down the dissenters and even more removed a platform to express dissent. This is the Emergency without the hardface. Asian Age had little circulation limited to Delhi but was in every home of the chatterati. Pioneer just doesnt hav ethe circulation. and MJA did have marquee value.

Internet does not have the reach. Very good move by PMO and INC minions. And they claim to be followers of Jawahar Lal Nehru how was for unversal adult franchise for all Indians. This is dictatorship by stealth and even worse despotism in the modern world.

Behind the facade of Welloff Modern Indian hides the antedeluvian Indian who reveals himself when cornered or looses the arguement.

UPA has lost the arguement on the deal after Hyde Act was passed and is resorting to the power of the Indian state to psuh the deal will nilly. And as the media is bought off by Western interests, Indina interests are being let down.


High preists of the scientific stablishement are hiding behind the protection of Official Secrets Act and getting away with it.


Ramana, do you think the UPA will get away with it, though? I don't think they will.

For the last several months, the pro-deal spin has been that the Left would fold, or the BJP would compromise, etc., etc. But none of those scenarios have panned out.

The UPA's this-deal-is-inevitable spin is being revealed as simply that: spin. And thus its power is greatly diminished.

Regarding the Internet not having the "reach" in India of traditional media: well, then, it's our responsibility of extending its reach. I would encourage every Indian who opposes this deal to email their friends and family about it, referencing the websites of Brahma Chellaney or Vikram Sood.

This battle is winnable.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 31 May 2008 07:53

Rye wrote:People here are complaining about GoI is not funding cold fusion research in India?! Why isn't the GoI funding research into a perpetual motion machine -- it would solve the energy problem in a big way. :roll:

If Cold Fusion worked and was accepted by peer review, every news outlet worth its salt will carry those reports -- the science experts in these news outlets probably know better than to
repeat the pons/fleischmann debacle.


Good enough.

I suspect mining for Uranium has gone through peer review, and, successfully at that.

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

Postby Rye » 31 May 2008 09:25

Maybe we could invite a few NPAs over to BRF to discuss India's weapons program --- NPAs are the best experts in that stuff, apparently, if we go by all the expertise on the various nuke threads here. Seema Mustafa and MJ Akbar can provide valuable expert commentary to supplement all the existing wisdom....hard to understand the kind of anal-isis that happens with such a mindset of ignoring past history of a journalist in countering their spin in their writing.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7033
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 31 May 2008 12:42

Not to mention a near complete blackout on BRF about the interests of powers like China/Russia and smaller ones like France/Britain/Germany on the outcome...

Unfortunate, but fortunately also irrelevant.

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

Postby Sanatanan » 31 May 2008 12:52

This presentation (Title: India's Energy Security The Role of Nuclear Energy; Author: Dr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, BARC; URL: http://www.petrofed.org/upload/India%27 ... curity.ppt) has, in slide 40, some information on Pu and U233 enrichment required for AHWR now under design / construction.

This appears to be at variance with the some data discussed in these threads earlier (07 April, 2008, 03:05 am by Shaurya T and 07 April 2008 06:35 pm by Arun_S) which I understood to indicate 90% U235 enrichment as the requirement (which again, as has been pointed out in the posts, is not permitted by the present 123 Agreement).

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

Postby Tilak » 31 May 2008 19:40

Indo-US cold vibes
Arati R Jerath
Sunday, May 18, 2008 03:30 IST

A US diplomat was heard lamenting on Delhi’s cocktail circuit recently that he’s feeling like a pariah these days. His dramatic claim may be exaggerated but to any one who tracks foreign policy, it’s been evident for some months now that the Americans are rapidly losing their most favoured status on Raisina Hill. Ever since the nuclear explosion in Congress-Left ties, the government has taken to treating Uncle Sam like a lover it no longer wants to acknowledge, a guilty secret to be hidden away till the elections are over.

Do aspiring great nations play shabby games with foreign policy? Apparently yes, when a government loses its way in the minefield of domestic politics. And it can get as petty as refusing shore passes to US marines. (They only wanted to play basketball in Goa after two days of gruelling manoeuvres in the Arabian Sea as part of the annual Konkan joint naval exercises last month.)

The sharp U-turn in India’s US policy is most obvious in defence and strategic matters. The government has been pointedly cold shouldering any initiative that could be construed, even vaguely, as doing a tango with Washington. For instance, a scheduled meeting of a sub-group of the Indo-US Defence Policy Group was cancelled at the last moment a few weeks ago without any coherent explanation.

The government is now dragging its feet about fixing new dates and scheduling meetings for the other three sub-groups. The DPG is supposed to steer defence ties in different areas like military cooperation, technology transfers, procurement and so on. It has met eight times so far. Now, the ninth one is in jeopardy as the UPA government falters in crafting a relationship that has got too hot to handle. Similarly, the DRDO has been told to freeze proposals for ventures with the US for the time being. The informal directive came on the heels of a successful mission to the US to explore cooperation in defence technologies.

The manner in which the pendulum has swung the other way raises serious questions about the government’s coherence on the policy front. While the Indo-US love affair bloomed, the Americans were the Big Daddies on Raisina Hill. Today, they are being slapped back and told to shrink profile and presence on the national stage. Surely, foreign policy demands a more mature approach to bilateral relations. If India is to take a right turn towards the US, the proponents of this paradigm shift need to prepare the ground for it through public debate. It cannot be pushed through, using the nuclear deal as a battering ram to demolish 60 years of mutual suspicion and Cold War mindsets. It called for better political management, both within the ruling alliance and in the country as a whole. Instead, the Indo-US relationship has been left hanging in mid-air for the next governments in Washington and New Delhi to rescue.

The pariah feeling hasn’t afflicted Israeli diplomats despite the Left’s open war on India’s defence ties with Tel Aviv. The reception hosted by the Israeli ambassador to India to mark his country’s national day recently was overflowing with guests of all manner. The line to get in was so long that it stretched from the door to the ballroom on the first floor, down the stairs and out into the lobby corridor! Arguably, a highly successful PR exercise by a nation India recognised less than two decades ago.


Left approval necessary for nuke deal: Pawar
Thursday , May 29, 2008

[quote]New Delhi, May 29: Senior Cabinet Minister Sharad Pawar has said that he was not in favour of proceeding with the nuclear deal without approval of the Left parties as it would be against the “coalition dharmaâ€

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

Postby sraj » 31 May 2008 22:15

A range of regional and international issues were discussed during the 30-minute meeting Senators Russel D Feingold and Robert P Casey Jr held with Mukherjee.

Asked whether the nuclear agreement came up during the deliberations, Feingold said the two sides discussed a wide range of issues including the deal.

Senator Feingold should be asked whether he supports this deal, and if so, why his views have changed. He voted against it in the Senate.

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

Postby sraj » 31 May 2008 23:14

Labor may cash in on uranium sales to India
In a policy backdown, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told Indian journalists last week that the ban on uranium sales could be overturned if a long-awaited agreement between India and the US was finalised.

"We have made this clear to Indian officials that we are bound by (Labor) party policy," Mr Smith said. "But if the 123 agreement is passed by the Indian parliament, we could consider joining a consensus."

His comments appear to contradict one of the first major international rulings of the Rudd Government: the dumping of a deal brokered by the Howard government to export uranium to India once it signed the US agreement.

Mr Smith's comments, reported in the Times of India last week, also are at odds with Labor's clear pre-election promise of not selling uranium to India unless it signs the non-proliferation treaty — a vow repeated by senior ministers as recently as two weeks ago.

Aussie posturing is revealed for what it has always been: posturing.

I am sure many here will remember how the Aussies were supposedly egging on the Kiwis and Swiss (under Chinese influence, no less :roll: ) to put in all kinds of junk in the NSG waiver!!!

They are all getting really desperate for India to sign on the dotted line!
Last edited by sraj on 31 May 2008 23:21, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby svinayak » 31 May 2008 23:20

sraj wrote:Labor may cash in on uranium sales to India
In a policy backdown, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told Indian journalists last week that the ban on uranium sales could be overturned if a long-awaited agreement between India and the US was finalised.

"We have made this clear to Indian officials that we are bound by (Labor) party policy," Mr Smith said. "But if the 123 agreement is passed by the Indian parliament, we could consider joining a consensus."

His comments appear to contradict one of the first major international rulings of the Rudd Government: the dumping of a deal brokered by the Howard government to export uranium to India once it signed the US agreement.

Mr Smith's comments, reported in the Times of India last week, also are at odds with Labor's clear pre-election promise of not selling uranium to India unless it signs the non-proliferation treaty — a vow repeated by senior ministers as recently as two weeks ago.

Aussie posturing is revealed for what it has always been: posturing.

They are all getting really desperate for India to sign on the dotted line!


It tells us that the Aussie labor govt has been notofied that N deal is about to be signed by Indian govt.
It is the business group worldwide which is holding this whole lobby worldwide and is making sure that all doors are being opened. The business groups - MNCs need Indians in a big way for the next 20 years when the world is going through a correction in trade, globalization and international relationship.

MNCs need the Indians.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2008 03:48

I guess, the days of "calling on the PM", with least regard to protocol are ending.


Perhaps, meeting the next PM?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 01 Jun 2008 20:04

Last edited by Gerard on 01 Jun 2008 20:10, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 01 Jun 2008 20:09

I think I'll post the entire thing. :eek:

Go on, save the deal
By Gurcharan Das

Lal Krishan Advani is a lucky man. Fortune has given him the chance of a lifetime. He can save the historic Indo-US nuclear accord and grow in stature from a politician to a statesman. Less than four weeks remain, after which the treaty will die. The Left has no room for manoeuvre, but the BJP does. If Advani seizes the day and persuades his BJP colleagues, he will go into history as the "white knight" that saved India's energy and security future. He would also take a giant step to fill the large shoes of his predecessor, and become more worthy in the eyes of NDA's coalition partners.

A hundred years from now history books will recount that when oil was ruling at $135 a barrel, India's leaders were complacent. They argued that since 65% of India's power needs are met by coal and only 3% by nuclear energy, why does India need a nuclear treaty? Oil did run out in the 21st century, but the nuclear deal rescued India. Initially, it freed the country from 35 years of nuclear apartheid, allowing it to import uranium, which helped to lift the performance of its 17 reactors from 50% to 95%. After the treaty, India's energy needs were increasingly powered by nuclear energy while other countries scrambled for the last few barrels of oil.

History will describe how China rose in the second quarter of 21st century to dominate the world. Some Asian nations became its satellites, including its closest ally, Pakistan, to which it supplied vast quantities of arms. India was able to hold its own thanks to the treaty, which paved the way for closer ties with the western democracies. The West stood by India during its times of trouble and eventually

India went on to balance power in Asia and the world.

History will narrate that the nuclear treaty never compromised India's right to Pokhran III. China and France did nuclear tests in 2020, which ended the CTBT regime. India was by then the world's third largest economy, and it followed up with its own test. The Democrats in America, instead of throwing the CTBT at India, were relieved to see India balance Chinese power in Asia.

History will report that during the 2009 election campaign Advani confidently took credit for having saved India's future from a traitorous Left and an indifferent Congress. During his campaign, Advani claimed that in saving the accord he had merely completed a process that Vajpayee had begun with Pokhran II, Jaswant Singh had followed up in his dialogues with Strobe Talbott and Brajesh Mishra with Condoleezza Rice. Manmohan Singh had crowned this effort, he said, showing great wisdom in signing the accord with Bush. He claimed that BJP's pressure forced crucial changes in the final treaty in India's favour. Advani told voters that when the UPA let its own prime minister down, BJP had to rescue the nation's honour and energy future.

This history will also have a coda. When he was trying to persuade his BJP colleagues in June 2008, Advani quoted from Arrian's account of Alexander the Great. As the Greeks were crossing the Jhelum in narrow boats on a stormy monsoon night in 326 BC, just before their famous battle with Raja Puru, Alexander told his generals, "Don't be afraid my friends, your grandchildren will sing your praises and remember your glory." Hearing this, the BJP leadership broke into applause. They had finally found a statesman to lead them to victory at the next elections. Rescuing the nuclear treaty became the turning point in the career of Lal Krishna Advani.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 01 Jun 2008 23:58



(I tried to post a reply in Times of India, but cant post it due to Internet problems. Hence posting it here. - PRABU)

The article proves that the writer has become a very glaring "chamcha" of the ruling party or the deal pushers!! It’s so pathetic and unfortunate for Indian democracy!! First and fore most reason , WHY THE HELL BJP should support the deal, when the GOI , till today is least bothered about BJP and BJP’s views on Nuke deal, and least interested in agreeing for a ALL party meet or parliamentary committee !!! ?

1) The so called 123 agreement is far away from the original July 18, joint statement of equal rights, negotiated by stalwart Mr.Natwarsingh ! (He paid the price for being pro India, via stupid Volker committee report revenge by the USA)
2) USA has conveniently shifted the goal posts by denying the full re processing rights (& up to 90 % ENRICHMENT) which is a primary requirement of our scientists, to continue our weapon’s program.
3) India’s obligations w.r.t. IAEA perpetual safeguards are legal and USA's empty promises / assurances on un interrupted fuel supply is purely political, as reported to the USA senate in writing !
4) The 123 is back door CTBT and FMCT with HYDE act, detrimental to India in every aspect of it! Why did GOI spent millions in lobbying this stupid HYDE act ? :roll:
5) GOI will surrender its sovereignty to USA, by toeing its line on every foreign policy aspect, including Iran AND GIVE AWAY RIGHT OF CONDUCTING FURTEHR NUKE TESTS !!
6) USA will threaten and publicaly black mail and humiliate India, on breaking the 123 agreement if India doesn't to the American line, even in one policy decision.
7) USA wants to benefit from the lucrative arms & defense deals, especially OBSOLETE nuclear reactor sales to India!! USA needs this deal very badly than India ! USA wants Indian soldiers to die n Iraq.
8) Get uranium from NON NSG nations?? Who stopped India??? Why so much delay? Why no action so for?
9) Use all other energy sources like HYDRO energy, COAL, WIND MILLS, COBAR GAS, and all UN conventional energy resources !!
10) COLD FUSION - why COLD FUCIOSN research has been abnormally LOW FUNDED and stopped! In fact many NUKE researches are poorly funded, whether knowingly or unknowingly!
11) All scientists and nuetral new papers, who have raised public objections/concerns has been silenced Mysteriously !! Including MR.AKBAR of ASIAN AGE. ( He was shown the doors ! )
12)Even if we sign, 123 for argument sake, we know the USA is our enemy in stopping , rolling back and eventually CAP, Indian weapon's program ! So NSG will NOT be a cake walk ! Expect mutible HYDE's there ! Thru US poodles !
13) Last but not least THORIUM, expedite the THORIOUM cycle, which will bring the REAL ENERGY security! The shortage of URANIUM is short term, for that Why SHOULD WE SURRENDER the sovereignty ???????

ONCE WE SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE, THAT WILL BE THE END OF INDIA'S BIG POWER AMBITIONS !!

IF USA IS TRUELY HAS LOVE TOWARDS INDIA, THEN LET USA SUPPOPRT INDIA TO BECOME A PERMANENT UNSC MEMBER !

AND LET THE USA SANITISE THE HYDE ACT , AS A INDIA FRIENDLY ACT !!

LET THE NEXT GOI (HOPEFULLY BJP!) RE-NEGOTIATE THE DEAL AS EQUALS !! ( LKA & Yeswant singh have indivated this !)

LET INDIA BE THE 6TH PERMANENT MEMBER COUNTRY IN THE UNSC AND A FULL FLEDGED FORMAL NUCLEAR WEOPON STATE !!

JAI HINDH !!!


Added later : My appologies, if I sound bit rough !! but these are facts !

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 02 Jun 2008 02:18


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 02 Jun 2008 03:17

The Atomic Genie in India’s Bottle
India's long-delayed fast breeder reactor has military objectives. While the world has been preoccupied with the possibility that Iran is preparing to produce weapons-grade atomic materials, India is probably going to get there first, if it can get its act together, and nobody seems particularly concerned about it.
:rotfl:

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 02 Jun 2008 03:19

Cold War veterans to visit India
One or more of the former Cold War warriors, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn, are likely to visit India later in 2008 to press for practical steps to reduce dependence on nuclear weapons and begin the journey to their eventual elimination.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jun 2008 07:22

Ramana: The other thread is swarmed with Phd’s. I am a lesser soul, so posting here.

One would want PRC to become a friend as it would be costly to be India's enemy.
Friendships are defined in many ways. Ways to define them in this context are to have common enemies, common ideologies, maybe a common ethos/culture, as a glue. Maybe we will all be happy making gazillions of money and go to the moon to find the resources to live a wasteful lifestyle, like a beer buddy. But, all of these are far fetched, in the near/medium term.

The fact of the matter is, the Indian Republic and PRC are at best competitors, in the world we live in today. What needs to be realized here is Chou en lai was visiting India with Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai proposals, just as they were building a road through Aksai Chin –with an India sleeping at the wheels. The Indian state, had the option to build a nuclear weapon in the mid 50’s itself, by Nehru’s own admission, but decided not to do so. I will guarantee one thing, the future events of 62, 65, 71 would have been different, if the option was exercised. I am not claiming necessarily better as that would be conjecture but certainly different.

Anyways, we have our history to learn from. This history tells us that China, which did not have a border with India, till the British ruled India, were given the opportunity on a platter to extend their borders and gobble up a nation, almost the size of India, without any opposition from the only country in the world that had any reason to object. An area, which should have rightly acted as a natural buffer was a strategic loss for India. But, it did not stop there. PRC continues to support TSP, with the sole aim of keeping India locked to the sub continent. Most analysts are yet to figure out, why PRC helped TSP go nuclear? PRC’s subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) support for Bangladesh, Burma, the communists in Nepal and although at a reduced level now, direct support for Marxist and separatist groups in India are all a carefully calibrated strategy. These strategies are not of a friend. They are of an opponent, if not an enemy.

So, why would PRC not want us as a friend, as they are now in occupation of the strategic pieces of property, giving them an edge over India. India will essentially need to play the role of a challenger to the status quo, if it hopes to regain its buffer and lost territories.

Can someone assert that there will not be another leader in China, who will take the view (Mao) that there is no such historical friendship between India and China? Is there any China analyst, who can predict the future course of the Indo-China relationship?

The question is, and I am afraid, I know/fear the answer, does India see these acts and deem them to be acceptable to its ideas of India’s place in the region?

I wish you would expound on qualitative parity.


The difference in yield to weight ratios between “Thin Manâ€

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

Postby amit » 02 Jun 2008 08:04

Gerard wrote:The Atomic Genie in India’s Bottle
India's long-delayed fast breeder reactor has military objectives. While the world has been preoccupied with the possibility that Iran is preparing to produce weapons-grade atomic materials, India is probably going to get there first, if it can get its act together, and nobody seems particularly concerned about it.
:rotfl:


I hope articles like this one from this veteran card carrying CPI member, who has belonged for the most of his life to the far Left of the Leftist CPI, is a reality check for all the folks here who think that the Left's opposition to the Nuclear deal stems from a deep rooted nationalistic agenda to protect India's interests.

Left’s opposition to the nuclear deal is just a step in its general objective of de-nuking India and positioning it as a secondary power in Asia dependent on China's goodwill.

If, and god forbid, that happens the political group in India, which is in the good books of Uncle Jiang, gets the greatest mileage in the Indian political set up. And no guesses for which that group is. That will nicely compensate the Karats of this world for the lack of a pan India base and allow them to keep on punching above their weight class.

I find it amazing that many posters, including senior ones, are willing to forget past transgressions of both columnists (folks such as M J Akbar and Seema Mustafa) as well as politicians just because their public position on the nuclear deal happens to coincide with theirs.

While the opposition to the nuclear deal on this forum stems from a genuine desire not to compromise (in the view point of these posters) India’s strategic options, the same considerations are not necessarily those of these politicians and columnists.

(As an exmple I can assure you that the writer quoted above has eloquently argued against the Indo-US nuclear deal, not surprisingly using many of the same arguments that have been used here by posters. Yet the ultimate objective of this writer is diametrically opposite to that of folks here.)

We can’t just cherry pick which positions we want to support and which ones to oppose - of both columnists as well as politicans - and depending on that either glorify them or vilify them.

JMT

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 02 Jun 2008 10:34

[quote]US steps up demand for heavy water from India

Importing companies mainly use it for non-nuclear purpose
Heavy demand
4,400 kg of nuclear-grade heavy water exported to a US firm recently

Two orders received for 11 tonnes and 4.6 tonnes of heavy water

Higher demand foreseen for ‘superior purity’ of Indian product


New Delhi, June 1 Even as the fate of the Indo-US nuclear deal hangs in the balance, India is gradually emerging as a big-ticket exporter of heavy water.

Heavy water is a sensitive ingredient used mainly as a moderator and coolant in nuclear power stations as well as research reactors.

The US is emerging as the biggest customer for Indian heavy water exports, while South Korea has also ordered a consignment, even as the firms from these countries that have placed orders are using the compound largely for non-nuclear purpose.

The Heavy Water Board (HWB) — a constituent unit under the Department of Atomic Energy that is primarily responsible for production of heavy water — recently executed an export order of 4,400 kg of nuclear-grade heavy water to US firm Spectra Gases Inc.

According to official sources, the New Jersey-based company has now placed another export order for 11 tonnes of heavy water.

Cambridge Laboratories Inc, another US-based firm, has requested for 4.6 tonnes of high-quality heavy water. The Board has also bagged an order from South Korea for 4 tonnes of heavy water.

Heavy water contains a higher proportion of the hydrogen isotope deuterium. Chemically the same as regular water, it is mostly used as a moderator in nuclear reactors that use non-enriched uranium and helps in stabilising the volatile chain reactions.

Growing demand


HWB currently operates seven plants in the country, all of which (except Hazira and Tuticorin) were operating at over 100 per cent of their rated production capacity till March 2008. While India has exported some quantities of heavy water in the late 1990s to South Korea and China, prior to the May 1998 nuclear weapons tests, the exported quantities were quite insignificant and there were no repeat orders. It is now that orders are picking up and, more importantly, importers include global nuclear powers such as the US.

According to official sources, the demand is expected to pick up in the coming years because of the “high quality and superior purity levelsâ€

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Jun 2008 17:31

As a FYI:

Wasted Energy
Last edited by NRao on 03 Jun 2008 08:04, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby sraj » 02 Jun 2008 18:19

[url=http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=240&page=7]Indo-US nuclear deal
There are weighty reasons not to accept 123[/url]
by Dr PK Iyengar
[quote]I, and many like-minded people, welcomed this Joint Statement. Though there was some concern about the statement regarding the FMCT, the statements about ‘adjusting’ US laws and international regimes suggested that this agreement would bring us to the nuclear table as a de facto nuclear power, in recognition of the realities of the day.

The problems with the nuclear deal commenced with the very next step—the Separation Plan. This document clearly spells out the guiding principles behind our approach to separation.

Finally, ‘losing face’ is an argument that may apply to individuals and human emotions. It is scarcely an adequate basis for conducting the foreign policy of a large nation.


The US is making strenuous efforts to get India to sign the Indo-US nuclear deal, essentially by threatening that it is ‘now or never’. This is in contradiction to the statements made by US Ambassador that a new US administration may be willing to renegotiate the deal within a year of taking over. But this begs the question whether the deal is desirable or not. Obviously, it is desirable from the American perspective because it will, in essence, prevent any further nuclear tests, cap our strategic programme, and bring us into the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) through the back door. But is it in our national interest? The lack of scientific debate in the media has led the Indian people to believe that we need the nuclear deal, and they are in broad support. But the reality is that this deal, in the present form, is just another way of getting India to accept that it is not a nuclear power. To understand this, we must go back to the beginning of the deal.

Joint Statement
After several years of negotiations by the NDA Government and later by the UPA Government, the Prime Minister of India and the President of the United States of America signed an agreement on the strategic relationship between the two countries on July 18, 2005. That agreement devoted three paragraphs to cooperation in civil nuclear energy. Specifically, it said that “as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such statesâ€

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1295
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Postby Kati » 03 Jun 2008 02:27

special, The Statesman, Kolkata, June 3, 2008

Nuclear power

Let’s Not Be Chauvinistic About The Location Of The Plant

DN Bose

In two previous articles (3 and 4 September 2007), I had tried to challenge the contention that nuclear energy could provide “energy too cheap to meterâ€

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Jun 2008 05:11

LEADER ARTICLE: Running Out Of Time
By K SUBRAHMANYAM
There are media reports that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will make a last effort to rescue the nuclear deal from limbo and call an all-party conference to seek the understanding and support of political leaders. If this report is correct, it is a welcome move and he ought to have done it much earlier.

Now he has only a very narrow window of opportunity to get the deal through while President George Bush is in office. There is no doubt that a deal on such favourable terms is extremely unlikely with any other US administration.

It is time the prime minister asked nuclear scientists to clarify the grim situation on the availability of domestic uranium. They should stress that this was known from the late 1950s and early 1960s and hence Homi Bhabha's focus on the three-stage plan which in the final stage would use thorium, available in plenty in India. While there may have been mistakes in planning, the uranium shortage is not a temporary phenomenon as is claimed by some, but a basic constraint on India's nuclear programme.

The scientists should also clarify that mature thorium technology is at least some 30-40 years away and to reach that, India has to pass through the first phase of 50,000 MW of light water and heavy water reactors and the second phase of fast breeders. India cannot do this unless it signs the nuclear deal with the US, concludes the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and obtains a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

The scientists should also reiterate the assessment they gave in 1998 under the NDA government that the data they have collected in the Shakti tests would enable them to design warheads up to 200 kilotons. The standard size of warheads all over the world is 125-150 KT.

The international trend today is in favour of finalising the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. However, if any country launches a new weapons research programme, the nuclear agreement implicitly recognises India's right to conduct tests and is the only international agreement to do so.

The scientists would also do well to explain to political leaders the nuclear renaissance which is underway and the emerging nuclear programmes in the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. The advances in proposals to have international cooperation in nuclear energy programme such as GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) and fourth-generation reactors should also be explained. The future role of nuclear energy in a world facing the challenge of climate change has not been adequately appreciated in India.

The scientists should also explain the adverse impact the failure to go ahead with the nuclear deal will have on our future civil nuclear programme. There are media reports of an ambitious BARC-like nuclear complex being built on the east coast.

If the nuclear deal does not go through, the Department of Atomic Energy will be producing engineers and scientists who will have to seek employment opportunities outside India. In that case India will become the only country, which having declared itself a nuclear weapons state, will allow its civil nuclear programme and nuclear research to wind down.

The prime minister should explain to political leaders the full international diplomatic implications of India's failure to go ahead with the deal. The proposed nuclear deal is not an issue concerning merely bilateral Indo-US relations. Russia, France and other major industrial powers have a stake in it. If the deal is abandoned at this stage, India's credibility with all major powers, the IAEA and the 45 nations of the NSG will be affected.

The Indian leadership would let down not only the American president but the leaders of the UK, Russia, France, Germany and other major countries who have publicly supported the deal.

Future Indian prime ministers will find it very difficult to repair the damage inflicted on the country's international credibility.

Lastly, it creates a new constitutional problem. If this deal is scrapped, on the basis of reservations expressed by some political parties, it will create a precedent that all foreign agreements should get parliamentary approval before the cabinet proceeds further.

That goes against the basic principle of responsibility of the cabinet to the legislature in the parliamentary form of government. If the House disapproves of a government policy, in a parliamentary system it is up to the House to vote out the government. India cannot have a parliamentary system of government and vest in the legislature the powers of the US Senate.

The final issue is whether Manmohan Singh is to go down in history as the prime minister who damaged India's international credibility, wound up India's civil nuclear programme and created a precedent which is going to generate problems for smooth conduct of Indian foreign policy in future. As he often explains, he became prime minister by accident.

At this stage, he has to consider whether it is worth continuing as PM at any cost. Though he may feel grateful to the party which made him prime minister, his primary duty is to India and the Indian Constitution. He should not allow parochial considerations of some members of his coalition as well as a few of his own party colleagues to influence him to sacrifice the country's interests.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Jun 2008 05:18


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Jun 2008 08:07


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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 08:51

Sorry if already posted

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/may/09guest.htm

Politics has defeated the purpose of Pokhran tests
K Subrahmanyam


On the 10th anniversary of Pokhran-II test, nuclear reactors in India are operating at 50 percent capacity. This does not appear to have attracted the attention of those who take pride in having declared India as a nuclear weapon state.
While that declaration was a sound decision in India's interests is there adequate understanding among our political class, academia and media what a laughing stock India will be when it has to run its reactors at 50 percent capacity for the next five years as has been highlighted by Dr M R Srinivasan, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Dr Anil Kakodkar, the present chairman has clarified that with the present known stocks of uranium ore in the country (some of which are yet to be developed) India can have only 10,000 MW of indigenous nuclear power. The country needs 50,000 MW of nuclear power if it is to sustain an adequate fast breeder programme which will convert abundantly available thorium into uranium 233 for the third stage of Dr Homi Bhabha's programme of self-reliant nuclear energy generation for India.
The uranium crunch is not news. Dr Bhabha was aware of it. Therefore he devised the three-stage programme to utilise the country's abundant thorium resources and secondly he believed in international cooperation to develop our nuclear energy programme.
Brajesh Mishra, the former National Security Adviser of the National Democratic Alliance government, who played a central role in both military and civil nuclear decision-making during the NDA rule, has pointed out that without India completing the 123 Agreement with the United States there will be set backs to Bhabha's three-stage programme.
Today not much attention is paid to the warnings of scientists. Our political parties are engaged in internecine wrangling, seriously hampering the progress of the 123 Agreement so vital to sustain the future of Indian civil nuclear programme. Presently, our political parties are on test on their commitment to India's nuclear future. This is not an occasion for celebration but introspection.
It is very unfortunate that there is major disagreement between the two mainstream parties on the nuclear issue. Mishra in a recent interview discloses that there was a continuity in nuclear policy between the Congress leadership and the BJP leadership. The former NDA Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in his obituary tribute to the late P V Narasimha Rao, revealed that Rao urged him to conduct the nuclear tests. Rao himself was thwarted from conducting the test in December 1995 after US satellites detected the preparations. The bomb itself was ordered to be assembled by Rajiv Gandhi in March 1989 after his action plan for disarmament was totally ignored by the United Nations.
Just as today many BJP people oppose the 123 Agreement which is a continuation of Vajpayee's Next Steps in Strategic Partnership. In 1998 many senior Congressmen opposed the Pokhran nuclear tests in their ignorance of the policies of their own leaders, Indira Gandhi [Images], Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao. What is the alternative strategy the non-Communist critics of 123 Agreement have to prevent the Indian civil nuclear programme from being wound down to a mere 10,000 MW level?
The Communists are logical and do not have any commitment to India's military or civil nuclear programme. Are we to assume that the non-Communist opponents are equally indifferent to India's nuclear future? What makes them think that they can get a better deal from future US administrations? Now that India's uranium crunch is out in the open how do they expect a future US administration to be more generous than the Bush administration? It is laughable that people are nitpicking on an issue of some long term future security of fuel supply. The world would have lifted the technology denial regime against India.
Why are we in this situation? It is because the continuity of policy that originated with Rajiv Gandhi and sustained by Narasimha Rao and Vajpayee has broken down. In the early 1990s India was able to sustain the pressures of US at the height of its unipolarity in respect of its nuclear weaponisation, and of the Islamic countries on the Kashmir issue. The present generation of political leaders do not have adequate confidence in their own ability to withstand US or any other pressure. The Chinese and Pakistanis do not worry about what the US Congress writes in the nonbinding clauses in their legislation. There is also inadequate understanding of the concept of sovereignty of the country. Otherwise questions whether India would be able to conduct a nuclear test, if it considered necessary, would not have arisen.
The major national parties face a crucial test -- whether they are prepared to place the national interest above their personal and party parochial interests. For the Communist party the interest of the Communist 'Ummah' comes ahead of national interests as it happens for other religious fundamentalists. But what about the non-Communist national parties? Will the Congress sacrifice national interest just to get its tenure in office extended by some three or four months? Will the BJP break with Vajpayee tradition of continuity in nuclear policy and oppose the 123 Agreement to score points against the UPA and for the new leadership to dissociate itself from Vajpayee?
In the 18th and 19th century the British did not send massive expeditionary force to conquer India. Most of the Indian maharajahs and nmawabs voluntarily placed themselves under the rule of East India Company. The parochialism and personal jealousies of those rulers converted India into British Raj. Today the political wrangles among our major parties and political parochialism of regional parties are threatening to keep India shackled in the global technology denial regime.
Major powers of the world want India as a partner. But our political parties are unable to partner each other to a limited extent to advance national interests and liberate India from technology denial apartheid.
Without the lifting of the technology denial and India acquiring the ability to interact freely with all major nations economically and technologically India will not be able to have a real independent foreign policy which will make it an effective balancer of power. That was the real purpose of Pokhran II. Today there is countrywide concern whether India is likely to lose face and its international credibility on the nuclear issue.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2008 10:32

Indian Nuclear C&C Dilemma

PG thesis Naval Post graduate school.

Manas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Manas » 04 Jun 2008 10:49

ramana wrote:Indian Nuclear C&C Dilemma

PG thesis Naval Post graduate school.


This link had been posted on the forum a while ago. The document is poorly written with a lot of grammatical errors not expected in a graduate level thesis. The analytical aspects of the thesis leave a lot to be desired.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 04 Jun 2008 10:58

Manas wrote:This link had been posted on the forum a while ago. The document is poorly written with a lot of grammatical errors not expected in a graduate level thesis. The analytical aspects of the thesis leave a lot to be desired.

Well, feel free to add to whatever you believe he has missed out on. Enlighten us please.

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Jun 2008 11:03

Manas wrote:
ramana wrote:Indian Nuclear C&C Dilemma

PG thesis Naval Post graduate school.


This link had been posted on the forum a while ago. The document is poorly written with a lot of grammatical errors not expected in a graduate level thesis. The analytical aspects of the thesis leave a lot to be desired.

Can you send me a email

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

Postby Sanku » 04 Jun 2008 11:31


raja_m
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 22 Apr 2008 09:33
Location: Bhulok

Postby raja_m » 04 Jun 2008 13:08

I'd like to know from BR gurus about India's efforts on Helium3 in nuclear power generation. Helium3 is perhaps the only fuel without significant radioactive waste generation. Although it's well known that helium3 is extremely hard to get on earth. In view of ISRO's moom mission, can we look at Helium3 as possible fuel sometime in the future??.

Raju

Postby Raju » 04 Jun 2008 22:49

[quote]Just at the end of the UPA tenure, Sonia Gandhi wants to sacrifice Indian national interest by selling Indian nuclear sovereignty to US

Nadia Solkar
Jun. 3, 2008


It is clear India’s Congress Party will lose the next election. But Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh is going to make India lose its sovereignty before they leave politics forever.

UPA Government is secretly planning to sign the 123-nuke deal with US just before the end of their tenure in new Delhi. The US Corporation will make close to $100 billion selling obsolete nuclear reactor components to India. No one knows like Bofors how much Sonia Gandhi will make!

"It is difficult to indicate any specific time. We are trying to operationalize it before the end of our government's tenure. The UPA-Left committee will meet soon to discuss the deal will be meeting soon. There were four stages for operationalization and the first stage of signing of the agreement was over. Work on the second stage of arriving at a India-specific agreement by International Atomic Energy Agency. We have to get the approval of IAEA board before proceeding on thisâ€

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2008 23:06

Need to check the Lichtenstein off shore banking issues and Merkel letter.

Raju

Postby Raju » 04 Jun 2008 23:17

Something's afoot. The casual way the fuel prices have been hiked is indicative of something very sinister. I had expected diesel price to increase by Rs.2 and Petrol by Rs.3

But what has been done here is to instigate the communists into opposing this govt .. or else give them the excuse to oppose the govt and prepare the ground for withdrawing support. Once the communists withdraw support the nuclear deal can be signed without any fear.

Ofcourse Lichtenstein and Swiss a/c's would have bloated considerably after this valiant effort.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2008 23:20

Pioneer 4June 2008

If tests allowed, we can support N-deal

If tests allowed, we can support N-deal

Pioneer News Service | New Delhi


Advani: Re-draft 123 pact to insulate India from Hyde Act


A day after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) asked the UPA Government to take a clear stand on the India-US nuclear agreement, leader of Opposition LK Advani on Tuesday added another twist to the nuclear debate by offering to support the deal if it carried no restriction on India carrying out atomic tests in future.

"We do not basically oppose the nuclear agreement," Advani said at an ASSOCHAM function here. "Our reservation is only on the written word that there should not be any further nuclear tests," PTI quoted Advani as saying. The BJP was not against securing nuclear fuel from the United States but wanted "the 123 Agreement to be redrafted to insulate India from the Hyde Act", Advani added.

Much of what Advani said has been the official line of the BJP but by the emphatic assertion that the party was not opposed to the deal, the BJP could hope to politically exploit the situation. While this could appease the BJP's 'liberal' vote bank, it would also highlight the Government's helplessness in taking on the Left parties.

The timing of the BJP's renewed focus on nuclear agreement is significant in the face of the Government sending confusing signal about its intent. A section in the Government has sent unmistakable signals through backdoor media briefings that the nuclear deal was not a closed chapter and even if the Left were to topple the Government, the elections would be advanced only by a few months.

While this could represent the viewpoint of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is seen as the architect of the India-US agreement and who has very little hope of being re-nominated as the prime ministerial candidate in the next general elections, the Congress high command is yet to make its mind on risking an advanced election when price rise is a major issue.

By challenging the Government to go ahead with the deal, the BJP has placed the onus on the PM, whose leadership and authority have been repeatedly questioned in the past. "It (the deal) is their (UPA's) problem. Why do they expect us to bail them out of the deadlock? They have to take the call: Deal or no deal," former External Affairs Minister and senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh had told reporters at BJP's national executive committee meeting on Monday.

Launching a scathing attack on the devaluation of top offices under the UPA Government's regime, Advani said the BJP believed that a "strong Prime Minister and strong Chief Ministers together can strengthen India".

He added, "The current ruling establishment believes that not only the Chief Ministers but also the Prime Minister should be weak and subservient to the dynasty. Can India become strong with a weak PM and weak CMs?"

Advani also said that the BJP would develop an alternative mode of development, with the thrust on speedy growth, for faster eradication of poverty with critical importance on good governance and providing opportunities for the young Indians.

Safeguards questioned at IAEA meet

Vienna: Abdul Samad Minty, South Africa's representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, said here there is concern that India's nuclear facilities meant for peaceful purposes might be misused since it was not clear how the country would safeguard them.

No timeframe to operationalise: Pranab

Chennai: With the Left parties unrelenting on their opposition to the India-US nuclear deal, the Government on Tuesday said there was no timeframe to operationalise the agreement but was trying to complete the process.

"It is difficult to indicate any specific time," External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told mediapersons here when asked about the fate of the deal in the light of Left parties' resistance.

He said though no timeframe has been specified for the operationalisation of the agreement "we are trying to operationalise it before the end of our Government's tenure".


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

Postby Arun_S » 05 Jun 2008 00:05

[url=http://publication.samachar.com/pub_article.php?id=2041504&navname=General%20&moreurl=http://publication.samachar.com/thehindu/general/frontpage.php&homeurl=http://www.samachar.com]“BJP not against nuclear dealâ€

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 05 Jun 2008 01:23

Vienna: Abdul Samad Minty, South Africa's representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, said here there is concern that India's nuclear facilities meant for peaceful purposes might be misused since it was not clear how the country would safeguard them.


Now yahoos from South Africa are getting into the game?

I have to suspect it is a ploy to shore up MMS.

It is getting worse by the day.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 05 Jun 2008 01:31

Considering the fact that AK has been tutoring the IAEA, on how to manage nuclear facilities, this statement by Mr. Minty is, frankly, insulting. IMHO he needs to apologize.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 05 Jun 2008 01:36

Man this Minty is all over:

Effectiveness of Indian n-safeguards questioned at IAEA meet

'The international community would like to know how India's nuclear supplies meant for peaceful use will be safeguarded from proliferation,' Minty said while speaking on 'South Africa's Commitment to Disarmament and Nuclear Non-Proliferation' on the opening day of the five-day IAEA Board of Governors meet Monday.

However, discussion of the 20-page safeguard agreement between India and the IAEA was not on the agenda of the meeting.

Minty said the international community was also concerned about the nuclear deal between India and the US since not much was known about the bilateral agreement between the two countries.

He said there was a fear that India was being seduced by vested interests to go nuclear to keep the world's limited oil and gas resources away from its growing market.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests