Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 20 Jun 2008 21:14

The economist(ry) PM called in his PA Munnusawme Raman.
Munnusawme Do you see why I am so adamant about this deal?
Munnusawme Yes Minister, saar I do see but not as clearly as you see, he said cleverly.
PM mused for bit, and said you see, he paused, Yes saar said the PA as if he is all attention...
You see, really speaking the opponents of the deal and the proponents of the deal are equally patriotic! The PM waited for his PA to interrogate him ( its a practiced technique for the economistry PM when he professed at OXphard and Camebridge)
PA Munnusawme responded as if on que, how so saar?
Look the PM continued, the opponents of this deal, think that our bums can be improved if we wait, and after improving them, we can with the force of the bums behind us save our skins, negate the Hydebound 123 and negotiate a lesser price to pay.

PA said I see and involuntarily 'Nan Parkaran" saar!
But sir remember you asked me, he turned to the PM lost in deep thoughts, to read that document loud, which was marked FYE "For Your Eyes only, often mistaken For Your Entertainment only by the PM" from RAW chief Kaw Bavaji!
PM was impatient what’s your point?
Saar in that R document (R for read only, don’t try to understand) it was mentioned Yield was not good!
PM was now visibly uncomfortable, this MunnuSawme is seeing through his master plan, so he wanted to steal his PAs thunder, Yes Munnusawme, yield is not good that’s why I am not Yielding to pressure on going back with this deal.
I can’t beat around Bush any more with the G8 coming up soon.
The PM was working to calm down his BP and understand where his PA was heading. After all Krishna Cauvery water runs in his blood, from where he comes, that often makes them think faster some time too fast to cause riots!

Agreed Saar you can’t beat Bush, Bush sticks and is rooted in one place, one liner at a time.
Remember Saar “If you are not with us you are against US”, so we have to go meet him.
Yes Yes but Munnusawme, think of this the annual budget of 3.5 Billion dollars to BARC for all they do, if the yield is not good the economist in me is saying something is wrong?

Yess PM saar, if we put that money in T Bills for us the yield would be very encouraging.
That’s it Munnusawme you are very smart, you think two to three move ahead even for some DF forums where tomorrow comes today!.
The important thing for US is to move forward economically; once the economy grows by leaps and bound no Hydebound is going to stop us from becoming rich and powerful with large yields automatically acruing.
Munnusawme chipped in, to say PM Saar, time to take Absolut decision saar in cold blood.
Yes I have resolved, let them move any resolution I am resigned to what ever but never bow to low yield threats!

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby rocky » 20 Jun 2008 21:52

I never properly understood this elections fetish. What is six more months in the government going to bring to these UPA member parties?

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 20 Jun 2008 22:03

rocky wrote:I never properly understood this elections fetish. What is six more months in the government going to bring to these UPA member parties?


rocky - you rake it in for 4.5 years and then collect money for elections for 6 months.
Not ready means rounding up all the drunk local goondas to sober up and do local party work. Mass orders for saris and dhotis/kurta/pyjama to be gifted to constituents and to go around with folded hands begging for votes. Excise contractors have to be woken up to produce liquor and money. "Liquidity" is needed after all.

Allies "not ready" for election is a shot across the bows of the CPM

"You idiots - if you bring elections on us when we are not ready - it will be YOUR fault. We will hold you responsible"

Let me guess. Knowing the strong moral stance that our dharmic politicians take - the CPM will allow the government to sign and take their pound of flesh because it is more important for them to screw the BJP than screw Kaangress. I will make a public statement on here that I was grossly mistaken if I am. Mother India is there to be screwed by everyone anyway.

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Ananth » 20 Jun 2008 22:08

rocky wrote:I never properly understood this elections fetish. What is six more months in the government going to bring to these UPA member parties?


Timing. Around Feb. when everything was going fine UPA was quite confident. Now look at their situation. Inflation is fast depleting their political capital. The expectation is that a few more months in power and if they are able to bring prices under check, hopefully with good monsoon (which is likely to be the case), then they can go to the people with much more confidence. On the other hand, if the inflation continues unabated which is worst case, atleast people will be desensitised. However that has never been the case. The hope of UPA is inextricably linked to Indra devta and his blessings. Good rainfall is definitely going to remove inflationary pressures from the essential edible items, which will be a boon to this government.

Right now it does not look good for UPA. This means elections will be called after it is known for certain that the coming year will result is pretty good agricultural output. So we are looking around Oct-Dec time frame for elections to be called. That would mean Feb-March for elections taking into consideration rabi harvest season & school exams.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 20 Jun 2008 22:18

Ananth wrote:Right now it does not look good for UPA..


In retrospect it looks to me that the Kaangress have played this game very well. They have timed the manufactured crisis to perfection. The CPM is at risk, and the BJP can make or break. If they break - they will take part of the blame and inherit an economy with 11% inflation (today's figures).

The party that finally breaks the government will be blamed. Not the nuclear deal because the deal has not been sold to the public as a bad one by the opponents JMT.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramdas » 20 Jun 2008 22:40

So Shankar, would that mean Reliance schemed to starve IOL and GAIL of skilled manpower. The solution is just a step above the Chinese way namely chain up the scientists to their desks or hold their family hostage. IOW our way is to make sure our DAE guys dont smell the dough and see what folks around the world of similar competencies are making and the lifestyles they are enjoying. No skin off my back, I make something well north of a hundred figures, what goes of me. There were better objections IMHO. IIRC the uno issue not a long time ago was nuclear power itself and the disconnects in the story that the GoI was trying to sell.


"Economic freedom for all individuals" is not so sacred that national security should be sacrificed at its altar. Unfortunately, there are only three alternatives.

1. A full free market with the govt continuing as it is. Here, indeed DAE will be starved of talent by reliance etc who will do nothing to contribute to national security. We will then become another South Korea.

2. Protect state monopoly in the nuclear sector. The "Chinese way" kind of thing, as you say.

3. Make DAE salaries match the best salaries. This would be a free market solution where the state's interests are protected. However, does the state have the resources for this ? If one set of govt salaries goes up, what can be done about other demands ?

All said and done , the absolute free market where the state meekly surrenders its interests to the mercy of the market is totally unacceptable. This is what is happening now, with call center people putting on artificial accents making more than an Army officer. This trend must be controlled. If the state has to intervene forcefully to do this, so be it. We cannot allow Reliance and others to starve DAE of manpower. They seek todays profits and will never ever work towards contributing to national interest the way the DAE does.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Katare » 20 Jun 2008 23:33

So many feelings, opinions and conjectures from folks opposing the deal.....

What would happen if India sign's the deal?

Nothing changes!

Fact - India can back out of the deal at any point with 1 year's notice. Every future govt of India would have that right.

Fact - If we sign the deal USA would not gain any extra leverage against India to arm twist us to sign NPT/FMCT.

Fact - India would pay certain price for testing nuclear weapons now, it'll pay same price after the deal. But if we don’t seal the deal, we’ll keep paying for the cost of lost opportunity.

Fact - If we don't sign and cooperate with the world we'll be the only looser and sucker in the game

Fact - It were not Mir Jaffar and Jai Chand that brought India down but our inward looking nature and refusal to get out there and explore/learn/cooperate with the world.

Fact – If we test nukes in future and USA wants its reactor and material back, it’ll have to compensate for every single penny that India spent on those things including dismantling, transportation and handling cost. It won’t be cheap or simple for uncle to do it.

Fact – Our strategic program would benefit tremendously with this deal in many direct and indirect ways mainly due to increased investment, capacity creation and freeing up of domestic uranium production for weaponization.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 21 Jun 2008 00:39

This trend must be controlled. If the state has to intervene forcefully to do this, so be it. We cannot allow Reliance and others to starve DAE of manpower. They seek todays profits and will never ever work towards contributing to national interest :roll: :roll: the way the DAE does.


IOW, attract the best and most committed talent in the nation and cheat them through a whole lifetime. Meanwhile IAS aphsars, politicians and taxi drivers make more than them. :evil: :evil:

Er... this is the same nation that is soooo rich that sanctions etc. won't make a dent in the economy, right? :mrgreen:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 21 Jun 2008 01:25

Left threatens to withdraw support

In a sharp response to the Congress decision for a political call on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal after June 25, the Left on Thursday threatened to withdraw their support to the UPA government.


“They have time till June 25 and they have to make up their mind by then. If they go ahead, we will have to reconsider our support,” CPM politburo member Sitaram Yechury said.

But, if the government is serious about going ahead with the deal, then the Left parties have no other option but to face the situation. “No amount of talks will help,” Yechury said.

Even though most of the UPA allies have rallied behind the Congress and prime minister Manmohan Singh, NCP supremo Sharad Pawar said that the Left views should have been taken into consideration.

“It is our duty to take our friends and whosoever has supported us for four-and-a-half years into consideration before taking a final view,” Pawar said after a meeting External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who had a series of meetings with the UPA partners. Noting that his party’s stand on the nuclear deal was “clear”, AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh said that the Congress felt that the agreement was in the interest of the country... We should do it (clinch the deal),” Singh told reporters here as hectic parleys began across political spectrum on the matter. He, however, stressed that a decision on the deal would be taken together by all UPA partners.

Extending his support to the UPA, RJD chief and Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav said that the nuclear deal was necessary for the country and it would be “unfortunate” if the deal falls through. “By signing the deal with the US, we are not becoming a slave of America,” he said.

Another Left ally, the Samajwadi party too has opposed the nuclear deal.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rye » 21 Jun 2008 01:30

"Economic freedom for all individuals" is not so sacred that national security should be sacrificed at its altar.



I am sure it is okay for a well-off Indian to support the "lack of economic freedom" for everyone else.

Sounds very similar to the Prakash Karat/CPI(M) principle on economic development (which Karat figured out while on vacation in London as he gazed deeply into the Thames thinking of the poor and hungry Indians in India under the jackboots of the imperialist capitalist pigs like Reliance industries and Tata Inc.). Lack of economic freedom (or a job or a salary) hurts only when people experience it personally.


Lalooji said:
By signing the deal with the US, we are not becoming a slave of America,” he said.


Very likely that Laloo's confidence is not rooted in his interpretation of all the legalese in 123.

Also, there is no way that the SP is going to support this deal, when it has the objections of the
islamic conservatives who are the key supporters of SP.
Last edited by Rye on 21 Jun 2008 01:36, edited 4 times in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 21 Jun 2008 01:32

uranium trade outside any regulations underway


Non-NSG does not imply non-NPT.
NNWS NPT members still have obligations, irregardless of their membership of the NSG.

So any non-NSG Uranium (and Plutonium derived from it) will still be under IAEA safeguards. The reactors and other facilities will be under campaign safeguards while the foreign fuel is present.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21177
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Prem » 21 Jun 2008 01:40

Rye wrote:
"Economic freedom for all individuals" is not so sacred that national security should be sacrificed at its altar.



I am sure it is okay for a well-off Indian to support the "lack of economic freedom" for everyone else.

Sounds very similar to the Prakash Karat/CPI(M) principle on economic development (which Karat figured out while on vacation in London as he gazed deeply into the Thames thinking of the poor and hungry Indians in India under the jackboots of the imperialist capitalist pigs like Reliance industries and Tata Inc.). Lack of economic freedom (or a job or a salary) hurts only when people experience it personally.


Some folks want dono hatho me laddoos while trading kaddoos.
From 47- 90s Indians neither have economic freedom or national security . The basis of realpolitic is money and till India is rich India cant afford to be a big player in geoplitical chess game.


satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby satyarthi » 21 Jun 2008 02:16

Four years ago when MMS govt was sworn in, almost everyone thought at least economy will be taken care of. There was immense goodwill for the the dream-team of MMS, Chidambaram and Ahluwalia.

Now we are passing through 11% inflation, and the growth is receding from the expected double-digits mark.

Economy was one area where this govt was not supposed to fail.

So, I have lost my faith in the forecasted bonanza of economy benefits following a nuke-deal. And given that MMS has peacenik tendencies, his judgement on strategic matters inspires even less faith. A large percentage of the arguments here are based on "faith" rather than objective info anyway.

So, I would rather lazily lounge around in my saffron pajamas till Advani becomes PM. Then I would wait till he sniffs this deal carefully, and if he finds everything is in order, then I would heartily cheer him in signing the deal and giving MMS his due credits.

Regarding the view "after Bush the deluge", well, McCain and Obama are running pretty close now. Who knows, we may see McCain in office again.
Last edited by satyarthi on 21 Jun 2008 02:21, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby svinayak » 21 Jun 2008 04:23

Rise above political interest & support nuke deal: ASSOCHAM

New Delhi (PTI): Industry body ASSOCHAM on Friday pitched for the government to go ahead with signing of the nuclear deal with the US, appealing to political parties to shun ideologies and support the initiative.

"The Indo-US nuclear deal will not only help the country's nuclear power industry but also allow us to source equipment for other types of power plants, precision engineering and laser technology," chamber President Sajjan Jindal said in a statement.

Appealing to political parties to "rise above party politics" for the national interest, Jindal said, "we cannot have a situation where we aspire to become a global economic powerhouse but get bogged down in political ideologies."

He said signing of the deal would "liberate India from a Technology Denial Regime".

The chamber said resumption of international cooperation in civilian nuclear energy for India is a challenging task since "we seek an exception to what the rest of world considers to be one of the primary pillars of the current global order".

It said any expectation that a fundamental change of rules can be achieved divorced from the context of Indo-US relations "only reveals profound political innocence". It said the US is willing to consider such a major initiative because India has emerged as a giant economy, a stable democracy and responsible nuclear weapons power.

"India's economic and political interests dictate that our image as a responsible and rule-based player be enhanced. We have come this far precisely because we have been so perceived," the chamber said.

The deal is of particular interest to Indian corporates as it would expand their global opportunities.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holn ... 210370.htm

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 21 Jun 2008 05:54

sraj wrote:
The option of saying "balls to the deal" (as you have stated) may not be available once India signs on to the deal. Why? because (among many other things):

i) trying to take out nuclear facilities from IAEA safeguards "in perpetuity" which India signed up to voluntarily would be breaking international commitments liable to result in UNSC action (of which India is not a member); and

ii) in 1998, when the US slapped sanctions on India, it had to strain mighty hard to build a coalition even among the P5 to follow those sanctions. Why? because there was no basis in international law for sanctions; there was only a basis in US domestic laws. Russia signed the Kudankulam deal with India in June 1998, thumbing its nose at the US one month after the tests. France was soon straining at the leash.

The fear is that this whole deal is designed to change the above situation by creating a basis in international law for multilateral sanctions (starting with the 45-nation NSG cartel) and thereby raise the cost of future Indian testing manifold. Most nations will not break their multilateral commitments lightly, or if they do, will demand a much higher price from India to do so (than, for example, Russia did in 1998 when thumbing its nose at the US) for the simple reason that they themselves will be paying a significant price.



Interesting fears, but it is an admission that India got off lightly in 1998. If we are to admit that India got off lightly in 1998 there is absolutely no reason to believe that India will get off lightly if it tests again.

This "straining mighty hard" part might have been a different story if Pakistan had not tested two weeks later and had not bombed the twin towers three years later. Fate, it would seem, let India off and we are now ascribing that piece of luck to some great enthusiasm for nations like France and Russia to do do trade with India after India broke the artificially imposed testing ban by the P5.

The assumption here is that after signing the deal, these nations will be treaty bound to punish India and will not have to be held back by as they strain to do business with India, and that if the treaty is not signed these nations will once again strain at the leash to do business with India.

Given that luck played a large role in bailing us out after 1998, what would be the basis for predicting the actions of France and the USSR. Both those nations were signatories of the CTBT in May 1998 and both nations actually broke the first two provisions of the CTBT in wanting to deal with India. I quote those first two provisions below:
ARTICLE I
BASIC OBLIGATIONS

1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.


It is interesting to note that BOTH France and Russia had not ratified the CTBT by May 1998, But France ratified it in June 1998, (What a coincidence!!) and Russia in 2000. They are both treaty bound now and there is no reason to expect that they will go easy on India for testing just because India has not signed this deal.
Last edited by shiv on 21 Jun 2008 06:34, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: so many typos!!!

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 21 Jun 2008 07:01

shiv wrote:It is interesting to note that BOTH France and Russia had not ratified the CTBT by May 1998, But France ratified it in June 1998, (What a coincidence!!) and Russia in 2000. They are both treaty bound now and there is no reason to expect that they will go easy on India for testing just because India has not signed this deal.


I don't quite understand the linkup. France and Britain both ratified the CTBT on April 06 - 1998. A good one month before POK II. The US hasn't ratified it yet, but had gone ahead and imposed sanctions, along with Australia which did it in July 1998 ?

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby svinayak » 21 Jun 2008 07:21

Tilak wrote:
I don't quite understand the linkup.


Things dont have to be understood here actually. It does not matter. People want increase in power availability.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 21 Jun 2008 07:26

India's Communists Oppose U.S. Nuclear Agreement
By Bibhudatta Pradhan

Failure to reach an agreement will scupper as much as $100 billion in sales for companies such as Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co., a maker of nuclear reactors. India is backing the accord to help meet energy demand that may more than double in the country of 1.1 billion people by 2030.


More of "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine.

Sentencing of Indian businessman won't affect N-deal
Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | June 21, 2008 02:38 IST

Although the non-proliferation lobby in the US and others, including some influential lawmakers who are vehemently opposed to the US-India nuclear deal, will inevitably seek to exploit the sentencing of an Indian businessman for supplying Indian government entities with controlled technology to question New Delhi's non-proliferation record, senior administration and diplomatic sources said this wouldn't fly, at least to the extent that it could torpedo the nuclear deal.

These sources acknowledged that the sentencing of Parthasarathy Sudarshan to 35 months in jail for his role in a conspiracy to illegally export controlled electronic components to Indian government entities such as the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Bharat Dynamics Ltd -- appendages of the Indian Department of Space and the Ministry of Defence respectively -- at a time India was under sanctions following its May 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests would once again prompt the likes of the Arms Control Association and other non-proliferation groups and activists, not to mention Congressmen like Ed Markey and Howard Berman, to once again attempt to besmirch India's much touted impeccable non-proliferation track record.

But these sources told rediff.com that even though Sudarshan's sentencing gives these opponents of the deal yet another opportunity to thrash India -- as they had done when Sudarshan was first arrested and a link in his conspiracy allegedly found to be an Indian embassy official from whom he took instructions and coordinated his purchases -- "it won't fly to the extent that it can have any major impact of the deal being consummated or not."

"I think what it more worrisome is whether the Indians can get their act together and get the 123 agreement back in time to get it approved by the Congress before the clock runs out," one senior administration source said.

"Of course, this is something for the critics of the deal to hammer the administration and India with, but that's the extent of it," the source added.

At the time of Sudarshan's arrest last year and his pleading guilty in March to the felony charge of conspiracy to violate the US Arms Export Control Act among several other export control regulations, the non-proliferation lobby jumped all over it and said the administration's argument that India's impeccable non-proliferation track record made it a perfect candidate for an exception of US laws to receive civilian nuclear technology and fuel was a misnomer.

They said that the conspiracy that Sudarshan was involved in and other cases in the past where individuals had attempted to ship or shipped restricted military technology for India's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, poked a gaping hole in the argument that India although not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty adhered scrupulously to non-proliferation laws.

Markey, co-chairman of the Congressional Task Force on non-proliferation, and Berman, now chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, made the Sudarshan case an example to thrash the administration's argument in their efforts to kill the deal and even referred to it in their Dear Colleague letters to fellow lawmakers and in the amendments they introduced during the debate to lend credence to their opposition to India being provided this exclusive exemption.

At the time, Berman when asked by rediff.com in an exclusive interview as to why he brought up this case in letters to his colleague and even in a missive he initiated to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and whether it was an attempt to imply that this kind of activity comprises the argument that India has a squeaky clean non-proliferation record, said, "We don't ignore facts to make an argument."

He asserted, "The fact is that one of the reasons why we voted for this agreement is because in the most fundamental sense, India has not been a proliferator. But there are some troublesome areas and I don't see what's wrong with calling attention to that. Everyone can do better than they do. We just wanted to point that out."

Congressional sources too acknowledged that if the nuclear deal makes it back to Congress anytime soon, "you can bet Markey, Berman and others who have problems with the deal, will bring this case up, but whether it has the weight to sink a positive vote, that a stretch."

"It will just be used to hammer the administration and India and to embarrass them to the extent possible and to argue that India is not that squeaky clean when it comes to non-proliferation," one source said.

Sudarshan, 47, CEO of Cirrus Electronics, with offices in Simpsonville, South Carolina, Singapore, and Bengaluru, was convicted of acquiring electrical components with applications in missile guidance and firing systems in the US and illegally exporting them to "government entities in India that participate in the development of ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, and fighter jets."

Court papers said that "the US government has determined that Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre participates in India's space launch vehicle programme and that Bharat Dynamics Limited participates in India's development and production of ballistic missiles. As such, both VSSC and BDL are on the Department of Commerce's Entity List and exports of US-origin commodities to these entities are restricted and require prior authorisation in the form of a license from the Department of Commerce."

The documents said that "between 2002 and 2006, Sudarshan acquired electrical components with applications in missile guidance and firing systems in the United States for VSSC and BDL. In particular, in the case of at least two US vendors, Sudarshan and others at Cirrus provided the US companies with fraudulent certificates that claimed that the end-users of these electrical components were non-restricted entities in India, when, in fact, the items were for VSSC."

"There were no export licenses for any of the shipments to VSSC and BDL," the court papers said, and added, "To further conceal from the US government that goods were going to entities in India on the Department of Commerce Entity List, Sudarshan would route the products through its Singapore office and then send the packages to India."

The documents also said that besides supplying VSSC and BDL with the restricted components, "Sudarshan acquired microprocessors for the Tejas, a fighter jet under development in India. The microprocessors were necessary for the navigation and weapons system of the Tejas."

"Because the microprocessors are on the UN Munitions List, the state department must license any export of the products," it said. "On two occasions in 2004 and 2006, Cirrus caused the shipment of a total of 500 microprocessors to the Aeronautical Development Establishment, an enterprise within the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India responsible for the development of the Tejas. There were no licenses for these shipments."

US District Judge Ricardo M Urbina, in sentencing Sudarshan, who is a Singapore citizen, although he was resident in Simpsonville, also slapped him with a $60,000 fine, and said, "In an age where it only takes one series of mishaps set off nuclear destruction, everybody has to be especially vigilant."
Last edited by Tilak on 21 Jun 2008 08:22, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 21 Jun 2008 08:12

Acharya wrote:It does not matter.


I am afraid, speaking for myself.. I post with the spirit that it does matter. Why else?.

One can call it another anal-ogy, but here it is anyway :
Can the local hoodlum stop and extort me any time he chooses, if I am week - Yes.

But

Will I announce that in front of the wide world, that I "willingly" wouldn't mind being extorted, opening the door for others to.... - No.


The IAEA agreement text and Fuel assurances. Please!.

Then people would be in a better position to judge a) to drop dead (b) go ahead [~get *** if additional stuff (CTBT+FMCT) were to get added later on by NSG and US Congress(as in the case of US-China 123 agreement, according to an earlier article posted here)].

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 21 Jun 2008 08:24

Tilak wrote:
shiv wrote:It is interesting to note that BOTH France and Russia had not ratified the CTBT by May 1998, But France ratified it in June 1998, (What a coincidence!!) and Russia in 2000. They are both treaty bound now and there is no reason to expect that they will go easy on India for testing just because India has not signed this deal.


I don't quite understand the linkup. France and Britain both ratified the CTBT on April 06 - 1998. A good one month before POK II. The US hasn't ratified it yet, but had gone ahead and imposed sanctions, along with Australia which did it in July 1998 ?

The date of France's ratification that I got from FAS dot org is June 1998.

The linkup here is the same as the linkup made earlier.

The linkup made earlier is that "France which was eager to do business with India after the 1998 tests will be bound by a treaty and cannot do such business if India signs the nuke deal"

The linkup I have made is that "By 1998 France had already signed a treaty restricting it from dealing with nations who tested" The implication is that either France ignored CTBT in its eagerness to deal with India, and that France could equally choose either one of two routes if India tests again in future:

1) It could continue to ignore treaties as it did in the past
or
2) It could decide to come down hard on India.

I have suggested that the twin events of Pakistan testing and 9-11 eventually softened the blow on India. Whatever the truth or otherwise of all these assertions I do not believe that any linkup can be made with the idea that France will behave in any predictable fashion whether or not we sign the nuclear deal with the US.

Added later:

In fact France did ratify in April 1998 as Tilak says. That in fact makes France's eagerness to deal with India worse - indicating that it wilfully broke its CTBT treaty obligations if the US had to dissuade it from dealing with India. It can be rhetorically argued that if France can break one treaty it has signed, it can surely break another at any time and need not be restricted by any new obligations posed by the India-US nuclear deal.
Last edited by shiv on 21 Jun 2008 08:35, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: added new facts to correct error

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 21 Jun 2008 08:40

shiv wrote:The linkup I have made is that "By 1998 France had already signed a treaty restricting it from dealing with nations who tested" The implication is that either France ignored CTBT in its eagerness to deal with India, and that France could equally choose either one of two routes if India tests again in future:

1) It could continue to ignore treaties as it did in the past
or
2) It could decide to come down hard on India.

I have suggested that the twin events of Pakistan testing and 9-11 eventually softened the blow on India. Whatever the truth or otherwise of all these assertions I do not believe that any linkup can be made with the idea that France will behave in any predictable fashion whether or not we sign the nuclear deal with the US.


Shiv,

I understand the premise of your argument, and I apologize, if you think.. I came off too rhetorical. What I want to re-emphasise, is that "they will do what they have to" with or without any treaties or agreements, India has to keep its legal/other options on what it will do.. as it has never signed any such agreements and doesn't intend to, as of now.

Manmohan Singh : "India will not sign the CTBT, we need to go ahead with the 123 agreemnt to get Fuel".
Kevin Rudd: "India will have to sign the NPT, to get Australian fuel"

That is where we are at.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 21 Jun 2008 08:57

ramdas wrote:This is what is happening now, with call center people putting on artificial accents making more than an Army officer. This trend must be controlled. If the state has to intervene forcefully to do this, so be it..


One way to do this would be to structure the career path of an armed forces officer like that of a call center employee.

Training for 2 months. Insane salary. No career path and a distinct culture of encouraging a call center employee to leave a particular company after 2 years because after that he well demand increments and status that are unavailable AND unaffordable to the profitability of the call center. No posting outside urban environments, but no facilities for residential accommodation or married quarters or children's education. Plenty of facilities to meet an interact with equally bored young people of the opposite sex.

This is like a project to convert a human into a horse. Elongate the toes, shorten the leg and thigh bones, elongate the spine, tilt the pelvis, reduce the size of cranium and upper jaw, elongate the lower jaw and you get a horse from a human.

The only question is what does one want exactly? Does one want an armed forces person or a call center employee? Does one want a man or a horse? If we can start with what we want, we are in a much better position to decide exactly how to go about getting one rather than saying that horses get more hay than men and giving them hay will make them run faster.

Why do I feel that both the call center/armed forces comparison as well as my own horse/man comparison are ridiculous and totally off topic in this thread?

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 21 Jun 2008 09:35

politicsparty

SONIA WILL NOT BETRAY PRESIDENT BUSH

The Media is completely wrong in assuming and thus misleading India that Manmohan is the author of the Nuclear Deal. Manmohan has never had ideology or commitment to anything.

Given half a chance, Manmohan would want to scrap the Nuclear Deal and survive as the Prime Minister.

Manmohan is just following Sonia’s Orders in taking the Nuclear deal forward.

Sonia was wooed by a Cartel of American, French, Russian and Japanese Businesses involved in the selling of Nuclear Plants, Material, Knowhow, Technology and Projects to set up 10 Nuclear Power Plants in India.

The India-U.S. Nuclear Deal is a must if India has to get involved in the Nuclear Business. Sonia struck a Deal with them. Sonia will not betray them. Otherwise they will squeal loud.

Sonia took the initiative through her chosen Ex-Diplomats slotted in key positions to strike a Deal with President Bush to usher in the Nuclear Deal.

Sonia will never betray President Bush of the US of America.

Sonia will therefore take the Nuclear Deal forward.
India will proceed at the International Atomic Energy Agency.


btw I was slightly wrong in concluding that AK Antony would be the next PM instead of MMS. It seems Shivraj Patil's name was proposed for PMship replacing MMS. It seems Sonia is intent on seeing a doormat replace another.

AK Antony though a Sonia loyalist can never be a doormat. He even snubbed Indira Gandhi when he took a righteous stand (I think against emergency). Then what chance does Sonia have of dominating him.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 21 Jun 2008 10:45

The LTTE hatched a plot to send a woman wearing a suicide bomb belt to greet Rajiv Gandhi in a pre-election meeting so that she could kill herself and Rajiv Gandhi in the process.

This was a conspiracy.

In 1965 the Pakistan army hatched a plot to send in ISI infiltrators in civilian clothes to sabotage and disrupt in Kashmir, after which Pakistan would attack and take over Kashmir.

This, once again, was a conspiracy.

The following MAY BE a conspiracy., but at this point in time it is a conspiracy theory


SONIA WILL NOT BETRAY PRESIDENT BUSH

The Media is completely wrong in assuming and thus misleading India that Manmohan is the author of the Nuclear Deal. Manmohan has never had ideology or commitment to anything.

Given half a chance, Manmohan would want to scrap the Nuclear Deal and survive as the Prime Minister.

Manmohan is just following Sonia’s Orders in taking the Nuclear deal forward.

Sonia was wooed by a Cartel of American, French, Russian and Japanese Businesses involved in the selling of Nuclear Plants, Material, Knowhow, Technology and Projects to set up 10 Nuclear Power Plants in India.

The India-U.S. Nuclear Deal is a must if India has to get involved in the Nuclear Business. Sonia struck a Deal with them. Sonia will not betray them. Otherwise they will squeal loud.

Sonia took the initiative through her chosen Ex-Diplomats slotted in key positions to strike a Deal with President Bush to usher in the Nuclear Deal.

Sonia will never betray President Bush of the US of America.

Sonia will therefore take the Nuclear Deal forward.
India will proceed at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 11:25

he Media is completely wrong in assuming and thus misleading India that Manmohan is the author of the Nuclear Deal. Manmohan has never had ideology or commitment to anything.

Given half a chance, Manmohan would want to scrap the Nuclear Deal and survive as the Prime Minister.


The author of the deal is not MMS or Bush or even Sonia

It is the US nuclear equipment making cartel and nuclear non proliferation lobby whose interest somehow converged into a deal like this

Indian industry houses joined in which will give them umpteen opportunity to send money overseas earned in the stock market boom of past few years and economic boom in general

And screw indian Am janata true and good in form of higher tariff for perpetuity

So who cares if the nation is raped -that is not PM s job to protect the integrity of the nation .His job is not to loose face with a half with american leader whom the world laughs at every 5 second at his stupidity

Left is making a mistake
they should withdraw support right now
let the government fall so the question of signing the deal will not ever arise

Any delay will help the deal going thru

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby svinayak » 21 Jun 2008 11:56

Shankar wrote:


It is the US nuclear equipment making cartel and nuclear non proliferation lobby whose interest somehow converged into a deal like this

Indian industry houses joined in which will give them umpteen opportunity to send money overseas earned in the stock market boom of past few years and economic boom in general
So who cares if the nation is raped -that is not PM s job to protect the integrity of the nation .

Dont you think you are propagating conspiracy theory here.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Karan Dixit » 21 Jun 2008 11:58

Good economy without strong military is useless because someone will come and take over it or disrupt it. Without good economy, it is impossible to have a modern military capable of defending anything. Once again as Buddha said thousands of years ago, balance is the key. We have to alternate our efforts as desired goals are met as far as military and economy is concerned.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 12:08

I
mpact on Our Foreign Policy



Our policy towards Iran has already undergone a sea change even before the Indo-US nuclear deal comes into existence. Our vote against Iran at IAEA was the litmus test. While India, for obvious reasons, would not welcome a new entrant in the Nuclear Club, this factor alone should not have swung our vote. Iran has not violated the NPT in any major way while Pakistan, China and N. Korea have clandestinely and openly violated major provisions of NPT. Action taken by IAEA against Pakistan could not come to fruition due to Pakistan’s intransigent stand that A.R. Khan, the thief in charge of the Pakistan’s nuclear programme, would not be made available for questioning by IAEA. Pakistan has been allowed to go scot-free and unpunished due to backing by US and the inability of IAEA to proceed against Pakistan.



Pakistan’s doctrine of ‘first use of nuclear weapons’, as against ours of ‘non-first use’, and Pakistan’s repeated threats to use nuclear weapons against India are a threat to India’s existence.



This is in stark contrast to Iran’s putative intention. By our vote at IAEA we have gravely damaged our burgeoning and mutually beneficial economic matrix of deals, especially in the hydro-carbons sector, in which India remains and will remain for the near future a big importer. The fact that India did not energetically and implacably oppose clandestine selling of nuclear equipment by Pakistan has weakened India’s position and diminished her stature within the global nuclear community, especially IAEA. This has put India in a bind where we are not even seen as a country capable of defending its strategic allies. We are already being dubbed as a US stooge. How does all this square up in our long term quest for membership of the UN Security Council?



There has been a great deal of heat and dissonance generated over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. A certain amount of dissonance would be expected in a fractious democracy, especially when the Government is one of coalition, that too with the intransigent and rather opportunistic communists. But the heat has been unbearable and the dissonance deafening. For the first time since independence, not only there is no political consensus across the political spectrum, rather there is wide chasm and discord.



Since 1947, our foreign policy has been defined and enunciated into a form and with such contents that it has enjoyed multi-partisan support of a pre-ponderant majority far exceeding Congress party’s strength in the Parliament. The nuclear component of our foreign policy has evolved from the need for autonomy in our defense and security framework. That was the reason behind Pt. Nehru’s endorsement of the nuclear policy formulated by late Dr. H. Bhabha.



We have also worked very hard for peaceful development of nuclear energy. We were able to withstand the political after-effect generated by 1973 and 1998 explosions. Even though 1998 explosions should have been made before the conclusion of CTBT, as done by France & China, our stature actually grew and the Great Powers that condemned us for our nuclear tests came back unconditionally, not only to normalize their relations but also to enter into strategic dialogue with us. This was helped, undoubtedly, by the opening up of our economy in 1991 leading to vigorous economic growth over the last 15 years.



Late Rajiv Gandhi had the vision to foresee the problem of scarcity of energy in India and under his leadership, the Ministry of External Affairs (I was the Joint Secretary dealing with the USSR) was able to achieve a strategic breakthrough in persuading the then USSR to put up 10 x 1000 Mw Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear fuel was to be supplied by the USSR. As we did not wish to have the spent fuel with its con-commitant safeguards and disposal problems, we persuaded the USSR to take it back. The Soviet export of plant/machinery was on standard soft terms (48% - grant element), but it increased to 52% on my persuasion. Soviet Union also agreed to provide nuclear fuel on concessional terms. There was no unilateral, bilateral or multilateral condition imposed by the USSR, except that these power plants would be under project specific safeguards and not full-scale safeguards of IAEA, which was entirely un-objectionable.



We have the agreement and the format for unlimited development of nuclear energy in cooperation with Russia. Why go for a deal, specially with the US, that it would come under severe, unreasonable, stringent and totally gratuitous conditions.



We declared a unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosions, meaning clearly that if our security & circumstances so demanded in future, we could & would undertake Nuclear Tests. Being bound by the putative agreement with US, we would not be able to do so without violating the entire agreement. Our agreements with Nuclear Supplier Group et al and US would be revoked, even though the IAEA safeguards would continue.



We are not going to get any special treatment from IAEA for safeguards. IAEA has only two kinds of safeguards – one for non-nuclear NPT signatory states and the other for 5 NWS (Nuclear Weapon States – USA, USSR, China, UK, and France). In fact, when we are a declared Nuclear Weapons Power, for us to sign safeguards akin to those applicable to non-nuclear weapon NPT countries would be politically humiliating and strategically disastrous, canceling in one swoop all our cumulative and hard fought gains over the past forty years in attacking the unjust and discriminatory NPT and our carving out a highly respectable place in the global nuclear community.



I was India’s Permanent Representative to the IAEA during 1998-2000. I recall dispatching a special report on safeguards voluntarily accepted by Nuclear-Weapon States. We actually worked out a proposal similar to but not identical with the one that Chinese Government had proposed and was accepted by IAEA. In our informal discussions with IAEA, I was given to understand that a proposal on the Chinese lines submitted by us would be welcomed by the IAEA. There was no meaningful response from the concerned authorities in India. Had the Government acted upon our proposal, it would have resulted in a de facto recognition of our nuclear weapon capability and lent a win-win position for both India and the IAEA. This option now seems to be closed, as the US Government would be mediating our negotiations with IAEA and the US congress will have the authority to accept or reject it and, of course, to amend it too. Now, even the European Union has acquired the temerity and gumption to call on India to sign the NPT. Imagine what will happen when we go begging before Nuclear Suppliers Group (dominated by the European Union Members) annually for Uranium.

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=126252

Why why we are doing the deal assuming the highest office in the country is not in the process of selling the country cheap

- why we did not take 10 reactors from Russia totalling 10000 MW under project specific safeguards which means we only have to return the spent fuel

- why we are cutting off Iran from crude/gas supply matrix without any viable alternative and at the same time talk of energy security vide nuclear energy

- why we are allowing our fissile material inventory build up to be limited

-why we are agreeing to no future test knowing a lot more tests will be required to have a convincing thermo nuclear warhead

- why we going for more share of nuclear power (on paper not on ground) when the world over the share of nuclear power is going down from 16.3% to 8 percent in next 10 years

- knowing the power from imported reactors controlled by private players will be prohibitively costly we still tout "common mans bijlee"

- what is the moral ,legal ,political right of a minority government to push through a controversial deal like this despite opposition from the majority both within and outside parliament

- why the funding to nuclear research reduced

-why investment to uranium production cut systematically

- why an etopic idea of buying many reactors from outside is being floated knowing the manufacturing capacity simply does not exceed

- why our so called independent media is supporting the deal in an openly biased manner

Cry India -for this is the most shameful moment in your history

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 12:14

Dont you think you are propagating conspiracy theory here.


No conspiracy -just look at who gains and who looses in the deal immediately and in near future

gainers -whoever imports these new and second hand reactors .hundreds Thousands of crores of public money raised in stock market will be used to the best advantage of the buyer

looser - normal salaried indian who will pay tax after tax and buy fuel at high price and power at even higher price and the middle man and the politicians who will collect the cream off the top -elections are coming.

Look at the money raised by Reliance in recent times the amount is not crores it is hundreds of thousand crore -what for

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby satyarthi » 21 Jun 2008 12:18

Karan Dixit wrote:Once again as Buddha said thousands of years ago, balance is the key. We have to alternate our efforts as desired goals are met as far as military and economy is concerned.

To be precise, Buddha never talked about balance between two different variables. All he was saying was that for a single variable, extreme values should be avoided. (e.g. don't tighten the strings of the Veena so that it breaks, and don't loosen it so much that no sound comes out). That is the import of the middle-way. But compassion and non-violence were not such variables. One was supposed to adhere to their extreme values. In fact many people blame Buddhism for creating an imbalance where military matters got neglected to the detriment of the country.

P.S. Conspiracy theories are like "horse-grams".
Last edited by satyarthi on 21 Jun 2008 12:25, edited 1 time in total.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 12:23

Vivekanand Ojha / livemint.com

* Email Print
* del.icio.us
* digg
* newsVine

*
*
* font size

Reliance Engery Ltd would aim to win contracts to build at least two ultra mega power projects , involving a investment of Rs40,000 crore, chairman of the company Anil Ambani said on 10 July.
Addressing shareholders of the company at the annual general meeting, Ambani outlined the ambition of Reliance Energy Ltd to become an all-round power player. He said that REL would focus on production of nuclear energy as well as transmission of power and would like to bid for allotment of captive coal blocks to ensure fuel supply at reasonable cost for its power plants.
On the ultra mega power projects, Ambani said that of the two UMPPs for which competitive bidding will take place later this year, REL had been pre-qualified for the final bid for Krishnanpattanam UMPP, while it has submitted its request for the Tilaiya UMPP in Jharkhand.
“The government’s initiative on ultra mega power projects represents a huge opportunity for power producers. We will target to win at least two of these projects, with an investment outlay of nearly Rs 40,000 crore,” said Ambani.
The company lost out on the Sasan UMPP in Madhya Pradesh and Mundra UMPP in Gujarat.
Saying that availibility of fuel is the biggest road block for India’s power sector, he asked the government to reform the policy framework that governs the production and supply of natural gas and coal. Ambani said the government must ensure that fuel is supplied to the power producers at a reasonable cost and that financial interests of the lenders are protected. This, he said, will ensure the success of the UMPPs.
On the transmission front, Ambani said REL will actively participate in the 14 ultra mega transmission projects, the estimated cost for which is Rs25,000 crore.
REL will amend its articles of association to include the prospect of nuclear power generation. Ambani told the shareholders that once government policies allow private players to generate nuclear energy, the company will set up a 2,000MW plant at the cost of Rs12,000 crore.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 21 Jun 2008 12:24

>>The following MAY BE a conspiracy., but at this point in time it is a conspiracy theory


what if the examples given above that are also conspiracy theories ?

Simply because some theory has been vetted by Govt Controlled media and outlets, does it make that acceptable ?

So basically Govt decides what theories are acceptable and what are not.

Afterall they control the media and other outlets. Does any media outlet in India dare go against Govt dictat whatever otherwise be the high moral stand they are perched on ?

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 12:31

ndia means nuclear business
By Siddharth Srivastava

NEW DELHI - Now that the political deals are almost over with US Senate passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the business deals can begin. To meet the revised targets of nuclear-power generation, India will have to build at least 30 more reactors of 1,000 megawatts each and spend more than US$40 billion in the international market.

The US estimates that overall business worth more than $100 billion can be generated if the Indian nuclear deal goes through, with companies such as France's Areva SA, Electricite de France



and the United States' General Electric and Westinghouse Electric Co also benefiting immensely.

Seven reactors are under construction in India, the highest number in the world (the US has not built a nuclear reactor for more than 20 years). Government-run agencies are looking to mark out coastal sites for 1,000-1,650MW reactors for the future. Each new site will have the potential to hold a cluster of reactors producing a total of 6,000-10,000MW.

It is no surprise, then, that the first reaction of US President George W Bush last week to the Senate action was that the historic agreement would also "create new business opportunities for American companies".

US Chamber of Commerce US-India Business Council (USIBC) president Ron Somers in his reaction to the successful vote said: "India's nuclear-energy market - estimated to require $100 billion in foreign direct investment - will be open for US companies, which until now has been a closed sector, creating a potential 270,000 American jobs in high-technology engineering and manufacturing over the next decade."

The Americans have made it clear that they would expect New Delhi to provide extra leeway to US companies given Washington's strong political backing in opening the doors for international nuclear technology to India. New Delhi is already in the process of clearing some big-ticket defense deals with the US as an immediate reward for clearing the deal at the US Congress.

In a quick reaction to the nuclear pact, a delegation of 225 business leaders representing 20 US companies that are to arrive in India early next month has sought discussions with the Mumbai-based, state-run Nuclear Power Corporation India Ltd (NPCIL) that builds and operates India's nuclear power plants.

The discussions will be part of the biggest US trade mission ever to go to India, from November 29, headed by Franklin Lavin, under secretary of commerce for international trade.

"They do not want to lose time," said S K Jain, NPCIL chairman and managing director. "They have very clear-cut intentions to understand our nuclear-power program and its potential for participation. This is also due to the hype generated by the Indo-US deal. The organizers requested the NPCIL to hold meetings on December 1 with the US nuclear-industry group and Indian partners in nuclear-power generation."

The delegation will include the Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy arm of the US nuclear-energy industry, the USIBC and the Westinghouse Electric Co that supplies technology to almost half of the world's operational nuclear power plants. Companies and institutions in the nuclear-energy business - such as GE Energy, Nuclear Energy Institute, Thorium Power, Westinghouse Power and WM Mining Co - are also part of the high-profile delegation.

Reports in the international media suggest that even China, which has for so long been indifferent to (if not critical of) the Indo-US nuclear deal, may offer a similar pact to India, perhaps in keeping with the new reality and considerable business opportunities. The matter should become clear during the current visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to New Delhi.

While there has been considerably talk about the Chinese offering nuclear know-how to Pakistan as a reaction to the Indo-US deal, this is the first time officials have been quoted about potential nuclear cooperation between India and China. Perhaps, in a significant indication of the thinking in China, Beijing has been guarded in its reaction to the US Senate action and promised a "responsible attitude" at the Nuclear Suppliers Group when the issue comes up.

The French, Canadians, Russians and even the Japanese have been in talks with the NPCIL, apart from the Americans.

"Interest has been shown by companies, including French nuclear power major Areva NP, Atlanta-based, $150 billion General Electric and Russian nuclear-plant manufacturer Atomstroyexport," a director at NPCIL said. "All have signed contracts with NPCIL over the possibility of erecting nuclear plants in India, and talks are at the pre-project stage."

Recently the chief of the nuclear-power division of GE met with Jain and Indian Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar to discuss the possibilities of setting up light-water reactors in India.

Another company pushing for contracts related to nuclear energy is Areva. The Asia-Pacific region accounted for 12% of Areva's sales in 2005. It has erected plants in as many as 15 countries, including India. The latest projects include construction of two power units (2,000MW total) in China and one power unit of 1,000MW in Iran.

New Delhi is also working on amending the Atomic Energy Act to facilitate private-sector participation in nuclear-power production that has so far been the private fief of government agencies. Many Indian private players, including Reliance and Tata, have also expressed interest in building nuclear plants. "We're working on moving forward to broadening of the [Atomic Energy] Act,'' Kakodkar said recently.

Reliance Energy Ltd (REL) has approached the NPCIL with a proposal to set up nuclear-based power projects. REL said possible nuclear cooperation between India and the US has opened new doors. Anil Ambani, chairman of REL, said the company is exploring the possibility of setting up a 2,000MW nuclear plant. REL is already in talks with GE for possible joint ventures.


Indian industry is also expecting contracts of more than $600 million from the International Thermo-nuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, a joint international effort to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion reactions for commercial power generation. More than $200 billion may be spent on the plants worldwide by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris.

New Delhi has announced that plans were being chalked up to double electricity production from nuclear plants by 2030 with the possibility of international cooperation. "We are trying to realize the target of 20,000MW and scale it up to 40,000MW by 2030,'' said Kakodkar.

At the current level of 3,310MW, nuclear energy constitutes only 3% of the installed capacity in the country. In this context, the Indian Embassy in Washington signed for more than $1 million two lobbying firms to "sell the nuclear deal" to the US Congress.

Recently, India's 16th nuclear plant went critical at Tarapur, while sites have been cleared for four 700MW plants (two each) at Kakrapar in Gujarat and Rawatbhata in Rajasthan. Once the 540MW Tarapur plant (the second pressurized, heavy-water reactor) is synchronized to the western grid, the total installed capacity of nuclear energy will go up to 3,890MW. Pre-project work has begun at sites in Jaitapur and Kudankulam for four 1,000MW light-water reactors.

To provide nuclear power to eastern India, the government has, in principle, approved a 2,000MW plant in the impoverished state of Bihar. The Uranium Corporation of India is looking to increase domestic production of nuclear fuel in many states.

NPCIL has announced plans to spend $1.2 billion for a stake in a uranium mine, taking on competition from China (India's main bugbear in oil auctions) and Japan. Jain said recently that India has approached Australian and Canadian companies on a possible joint venture in uranium mining.

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.


posted without comments -self explanatory

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)



US-India nuclear deal closer to fruition (Nov 18, '06)



Discount Hotel Reservations
New delhi Hotels
Maldives Hotels
Sri lanka Hotels
Manila Hotels
Bali Hotels
Korea Hotels





Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 12:39

nitially, it appeared that most of the debates about the U.S.-India nuclear agreement were largely political. A deafening silence marked the business implications - and with good reason: Many senior executives were waiting for the political clouds to clear and for the final terms of the agreement to be revealed.

By the second week of August, however, a flurry of business moves has become evident. According to Bloomberg News: "Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear power stations, and General Electric, are among four companies poised to share $14 billion of orders from India as nations led by the U.S. prepare to lift a 33-year ban. Toshiba's Westinghouse Electric and Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom will probably also win contracts to each build two 1,000 megawatt reactors."

t the recent annual general meeting of Tata Power, the group's chairman, Ratan Tata, told shareholders: "If the government opens the sector for private investment, Tata Power would be certainly interested in operating a nuclear power plant." A critical challenge for businesses, however, will be securing the government's green light. Today, only companies with a 51% government stake are allowed to generate nuclear energy. In practice, this has boiled down to only NPCIL.


Apart from the Tatas, other interested parties will likely include the Anil Ambani-controlled Reliance Energy, the Essar Group and the GMR Group. Kanavi points out that U.S. companies helping to set up these plants will be looking to work with Indian contractors. Some of the contenders include: Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) and Gammon India in civil construction; L&T in reactors; Bharat Heavy Engineering Ltd (BHEL) in boilers; KSB, Kirloskar Brothers, Mather & Platt, Jyoti Ltd. and Bharat Pumps in boiler feed pumps; Alpha Laval, GEI Hammon Pipes, Maharashtra Seamless and Ratnamani Metals in heat exchangers; Honeywell Automation in panels; and Rolta India in consulting and engineering services. Some industry watchers also include Walchandnagar Industries, Godrej & Boyce, Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels, the Hyderabad-based MTAR (which produces assemblies and precision components for use in space and nuclear applications), and Crompton Greaves.

M.V. Kotwal, who heads the heavy engineering division of engineering giant L&T, now sees openings to set up "light water nuclear reactors of the boiling water type or the pressurized water type." He says the technology for such reactors, which need enriched uranium as fuel, is available with the U.S., France, Japan and Russia. Whereas L&T is equipped to manufacture the main reactor vessels as well as steam generators, pressurizers and other critical equipment for such nuclear power plants, "it is a problem at times to source some of the raw material which is manufactured by European, Japanese and Russian companies," says Kotwal. "After the clearance of the agreement, it will be easier to source such material and hence to speed up the Indian program."

The big Indian houses of Tata, Mahindra and Godrej are cobbling together consortia to bid for defense projects that may open up once the nuclear deal takes effect. L&T has already signed up with European aerospace and defense group EADS. It is planning to build submarines for the Indian Navy and has produced prototypes of products including missile launchers.


http://www.littleindia.com/news/148/ART ... 09-03.html

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 21 Jun 2008 14:40

Has the government fallen yet? Haven't seen the news.

More seriously I have been pisko-probing various viewpoints and woudl like to make some comments.

i did state earlier that I was undecided about being for or against the deal. But the last 24-48 hours have made me very ve-ry slightly anti-deal - mainly out of sympathy for the anti deal lobby. Let me try and explain my fairly complex thoughts.

The people who are against the deal are working against a handicap for the following reason:

Signing the deal is a simple issue. After signing )or signing away or whatever) - no further bold action is required. Whatever comes after signing the deal is being touted as a great advantage by pro-dealers.

But not signing the deal and sitting on one's haunches carries with it a liability. The accusation will be made that a juicy deal was missed. In order to make the wishes (dreams?) of a lot of anti-deal people come true, India cannot sit on its haunches and gloat after rejecting this deal. India will have to test. Not testing after rejecting the deal would be stupid and would literally render false a lot of the arguments made by the anti-deal people.

The sympathy that tilts me against the deal (at this moment of time) is more from my heart than from my head. This is because (at least some of) the anti-deal folks seem to have at least three very strong emotional reasons for not signing the deal - apart from any technical arguments that have been made. These are as follows:

1) A deep feeling of inadequacy of the power of India's tests and a conviction that they are nothing until they are at the very least visibly equal to the nuclear bombs of the P5

2) A sense of deep disappointment and anger that the deal does not give India equal status with the P5 - which is what was somehow expected of the deal (even if this expectation was unrealistic)

3) A deeply felt need that India must stop at nothing less than a visibly large arsenal that sends a signal to anyone that we can burn them up if they so much as try to hint any superiority over India.

But these are emotional and not necessarily practical. The "practical" bit can only begin to be demonstrated if India does not sign the deal and India tests and India shows the intention to develop a huge arsenal of multi kiloton or multi megaton bombs.

Anything less would make a lot of the anti-deal rhetoric hot air. In a democracy such as India where the population is heading in every which direction at any given point in time these aims would be difficult to achieve. It may be called a an Indian weakness. But railing against it might not make it any less true.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby pradeepe » 21 Jun 2008 14:43

ramdas wrote:"Economic freedom for all individuals" is not so sacred that national security should be sacrificed at its altar. Unfortunately, there are only three alternatives.
...


I would infact argue that the above premise is exactly whats wrong. Defining national security in so narrow terms is also a fallacy. A nation fails faster if basic freedoms for individuals are not protected. Anyway be that as it may, as folks have pointed out, lets be the first one to stand in line before asking of sacrifice from someone else.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 21 Jun 2008 16:19

Breaking News:

Mayawati's BSP withdraws support to UPA.

BSP has 19 MPs in Lok Sabha

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 16:30

)
A deep feeling of inadequacy of the power of India's tests and a conviction that they are nothing until they are at the very least visibly equal to the nuclear bombs of the P5

2) A sense of deep disappointment and anger that the deal does not give India equal status with the P5 - which is what was somehow expected of the deal (even if this expectation was unrealistic)

3) A deeply felt need that India must stop at nothing less than a visibly large arsenal that sends a signal to anyone that we can burn them up if they so much as try to hint any superiority over India.


1) not exactly -it is more from the knowledge that all known data available from the test and its subsequent review does not prove beyond doubt that indian thermonuclear weapons are fool proof and will be usable for the role intended should the occasion arise .They can never be equal to the bombs of Russia and US even in quality but it need to be demonstrated beyond doubt that it works in a more conclusive way rad full yield test in a warhead configuration .Unless that is done the so called nuclear deterrence we talk about does not hold much water except with respect to Pakistan .The scientists know they need to test quite a few more models before accepting a moratorium but afraid to speak out against the government who after all pays their salary and decided on promotions.

2) not an equal status but in the same catagory as a weapon state which again is not possible unless we do quite a few more round of tests and prove to the world we have the capability beyond doubt -the ambiguity need to be removed .It has served us well in past but is counterproductive now

3) when you ask for a nuclear weapon state status from world body -ofcourse you need quite a few nuclear weapons not just six like south africa which was forced to give it up .When you say you are a nuclear weapon state you better show what you got in good quantity enough to stop anyone from even thinking to take them out by force

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Shankar » 21 Jun 2008 16:34

But these are emotional and not necessarily practical. The "practical" bit can only begin to be demonstrated if India does not sign the deal and India tests and India shows the intention to develop a huge arsenal of multi kiloton or multi megaton bombs


- correct 100% that is what the next government should do hopefully it will be BJP one
we need not have 5 MT city busters ,about 300kt should be enough in todays context but in warhead configuaration for free fall bombs ,missiles and torpedoes (just a warning to carrier forces )


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests