Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Johann » 23 Jun 2008 10:03

Satyarthi,

Firstly;

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. What is being discussed here is the feasibility of global nuclear disarmament.

India's original reason for acquiring nuclear weapons was the PRC's nuclear deterrent, and spurred on by its subsequent leakage to Pakistan.

Obviously unilateral Indian nuclear disarmament without a change in the regional environment is impossible.

Both Russia and the PRC (and their clients) would ultimately follow the Americans in to global nuclear disarmament *if* the Americans were committed. The Americans toyed with the idea in the early 1990s, but were too complacent to bother making such a fundamental shift.

US wilingness to think radically about comprehensively ending reliance on nuclear weapons for security was actually *higher* in the 1980s than after the Cold War.

Secondly,

Nuclear weapons are not something that most professional military officers are fond of. On the whole they steal money from conventional forces, and the result are weapon systems that to all intents and purposes can not be used, leaving them less prepared for the kinds of wars they end up fighting, or are likely to fight. You would be surprised how many professional military officers around the world (even in some very unlikely places) support global nuclear disarmament.

The only exceptions are armed forces that face a *massive*, *conventional* disadvantage against the enemy, where you tend to find a somewhat higher proportion of those favour nuclear weapons - e.g. NATO in the Cold War facing the Warsaw Pact, and Israeli Defence Forces facing the Arabs before 1978.

In the subcontinent it tends to be the PA far, far more than the IA that sees nuclear weapons as essential to national survival given the Indian conventional advantage and Pakistan's disadvantageous geography.

Any future wars involving India are HIGHLY likely to turn nuclear.
Which is precisely why political leadership in all countries concerned will never do more than move to the brink of confrontation - threats, maneuvering, and proxy war rather than conventional conflict. India has not fought a conventional inter-state war since 1971 (or should that be 1974) - interesting isnt it?

This takes us back to the whole issue of why nuclear weapons have not been used in 63 years (although they have been seriously considered a number of times), and why nuclear weapons are political rather than military in nature.

Thirdly,

Military professionals all agree that fighting large irregular insurgencies is a qualitatively *different* kind of war from conventional conflicts, one that requires very different tactics and strategy.

But combat is combat when you come down to it. I'd like you to meet and talk to any of the the tens of thousands of Soviet or American (or for that matter Indian) veterans who were in intense firefights that sometimes lasted days, who saw fellow soldiers get hit, or exhibit valour in the face of intense fire that what they endured wasnt 'a real war'. Please do not take the armchair generals view that only battles between conventional armies at brigade level and above qualify as combat. It is fundamentally demeaning to all combat veterans, besides being out of touch with reality.
Last edited by Johann on 23 Jun 2008 10:09, edited 1 time in total.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

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

Postby sraj » 23 Jun 2008 10:09

ShauryaT wrote:
Gerard wrote:
Where is the assumption that once FMCT is signed the NWS will put their facilities under safeguards coming from, for it is not in the draft?


Isn't this the implication of article 1? How else does it take effect?
Not at all, read article III for how it will take effect. It is entirely left to the nation in question. NO IAEA or ANY safeguards are envisioned.

In any event, that is just the US proposal. Nations like Japan that suffer from IAEA inspections (one third of the IAEA budget is spent on Japanese inspections IIRC) are unlikely to give China a free pass.
This is where the lack of Japanese sovereignity comes in. They are essentially powerless on the score.

A FMCT where the NWS don't allow others to monitor their reactors is dead in the water.
The NWS will walk right ahead and dare anyone to stop them or their global regimes. Who will do that? The spin that look the NWS have stopped production and the non-NPT members should comply will be enough for the rest of the NPT members to support and put pressure on India. Again, we will hear lectures from Sweden, Finland and Ecuador on how India should respect the world order. :evil:

So, looking back:
-- March 3, 2006: India accepts "in perpetuity" safeguards in exchange for fuel supply assurances

-- May 18, 2006: US presents FMCT draft at CD in Geneva with Artcile III language cited above

-- December, 2006: Hyde Act as passed significantly dilutes and undermines US fuel supply assurances

-- July, 2007: 123 agreement demonstrates US fuel supply assurances are essentially unenforceable, but is unambiguous about "in perpetuity" safeguards

-- July, 2008?: IAEA safeguards language?? (don't know) - apart from press reports that India is defined as NNWS in this document!

-- September, 2008?: NSG Waiver language? (don't know) - except that first US draft had explicit references to "in perpetuity" IAEA safeguards, testing, and FMCT but no references to fuel supplies; US has refused to share second NSG draft with India.

Talk about a slippery slope, all the way from July 18, 2005!

Net Result: P5 will get together to monitor Japanese and Indian facilities, but have the de-facto capability to do whatever they please with their facilities! And India signs up to all this voluntarily! Self-capping, self-conquering, lack of self-confidence in our leaders........etc etc etc

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

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

Postby John Snow » 23 Jun 2008 10:09

shiv wrote:
John Snow wrote:George W. Bush June 15 1999.

Beside George Bush is very disarming as it is they know about our Nukes, we don't want to be disarmed any more no?


Arre John Snow garu. We have no deterrent. How can we be "more disarmed" than zero?


Shiv ji garu, you have to think out of the bun when it comes to Rice from the Bush!

That is think conventional in Nukes and unconventional in conventional arms, Look he may question the purchase of The Groshkov , he may question Rambha deal, and say why are you paying the bad Russians with good american dollars, buy F-16 you will know how the PAF works!

Also I want you to keep this secret because so many conscription theories are floating.

You daughter may have had 200 boyfriends - but she will be virgo intacta when you send out 10,000 wedding invites. That is our culture. Why break it and expose embarrassing facts to all and sundari?
Shiv ji said
You daughter may have had 200 boyfriends - but she will be virgo intacta when you send out 10,000 wedding invites. That is our culture. Why break it and expose embarrassing facts to all and sundari?


You are getting very nevous about my posts bringing in my daughters, and her 200 boy friends. Dont be nervous Dr. Heal thy self reach out to the cabinet!
(does your daughter have only grild friends of 200 or more then read on)
See its better for meor for that matter even your daughters have 200 or more boy friends, because if they have 200 or more girls friends we have bigger problem called ADD, only CDC has details about that.
When I get my hands on them I will pass it on to you. I know You are behind.. most of us are...

Beside when ever I am asked these kind of questions by hindus like you, I reach out to the Book, the Bobby in me cant resist this, If Joseph and Virgin Mother gave a saviour, and there is second coming, then your daughter or mine may be lucky to save the world. no?

Any way dont worry about details I dont have daughter nor do you no? God bless your family and dont be cross. :)

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 » 23 Jun 2008 10:15

Raju wrote:Tilak ji, Siddhartha Reddy was a correspondent and columnist of Asian Age and advisor and a close associate of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and was also a member of the national executive of the BJP.


Thanks, for curiosity's sake..do you happen to know his last name, or some of the articles he has penned previously ?.
Last edited by Tilak on 23 Jun 2008 10:24, edited 1 time in total.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

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

Postby sraj » 23 Jun 2008 10:21

Johann wrote:What is being discussed here is the feasibility of global nuclear disarmament.

India's original reason for acquiring nuclear weapons was the PRC's nuclear deterrent, and spurred on by its subsequent leakage to Pakistan.

Obviously unilateral Indian nuclear disarmament without a change in the regional environment is impossible.

Both Russia and the PRC (and their clients) would ultimately follow the Americans in to global nuclear disarmament *if* the Americans were committed. The Americans toyed with the idea in the early 1990s, but were too complacent to bother making such a fundamental shift.

US wilingness to think radically about comprehensively ending reliance on nuclear weapons for security was actually *higher* in the 1980s than after the Cold War.

Johann: Why shouldn't we all start with taking up PAROS (keeping space free of weapons) before we try to get into the thorny issues involved in global nuclear disarmament. Much less invested so far in space; so should be easier, right?

Raju

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

Postby Raju » 23 Jun 2008 10:25

Tilak wrote:
Raju wrote:Tilak ji, Siddhartha Reddy was a correspondent and columnist of Asian Age and advisor and a close associate of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and was also a member of the national executive of the BJP.


Thanks, for curiosity's sake..do you happen to know his last name ?.


Reddy .. he is also the husband of Congress MP from Chikmanglur Tara Devi Siddhartha I think.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

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

Postby sraj » 23 Jun 2008 10:26

Article II.3 of FMCT draft:
3. The term "produce fissile material" does not include activities involving fissile material produced prior to entry into force of the Treaty, provided that such activities do not increase the total quantity of plutonium, uranium-233, or uranium-235 in such fissile material.

Question for ShauryaT or Gerard: would the above cover conversion of RgPu into WgPu?

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

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

Postby John Snow » 23 Jun 2008 10:35

Any relation to Snehalata Reddy and George Reddy of emergency fame?

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

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

Postby Shankar » 23 Jun 2008 11:07

Question for ShauryaT or Gerard: would the above cover conversion of RgPu into WgPu?


yes it does since it increases the Pu content

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

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

Postby nkumar » 23 Jun 2008 11:08

Self-deleted.
Last edited by nkumar on 23 Jun 2008 11:23, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby John Snow » 23 Jun 2008 11:20

Shiv ji garu>> we are playing for the same team, so it doesnt add to your staure as admin to post about daughters and mothers, I am not a public figure nor are you. So we should not tread on slippery slopes here. As it is the devilish deal has fractured this forum. Lets us not RIP it apart.
With all humility and respect.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

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

Postby Sanatanan » 23 Jun 2008 12:18

News item from TOI, 23 June, 2008

India, Iran likely to sign gas pipeline deal: Deora
23 Jun 2008, 0944 hrs IST,PTI

JEDDAH: India on Monday said it will sign "very soon" an agreement with Iran and Pakistan in connection with the transnational pipeline project involving the three countries.

Petroleum Minister Murli Deora after a meeting with his Iranian counterpart Gholam Hosein Nozari for talks on the $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline project said there were "some minor problems" which have been sorted out.

"There were also some issues with Pakistan that has been taken care of," Deora said.

"The Pakistan oil minister has changed and so we have to deal with the new minister who is going to deal with it. Very soon we should be able to sign the agreement with Iran and Pakistan," he said.

The project was first mooted in 1994 but has been stalled by a series of disputes over prices and transit fees.

Finance Minister P Chidambaram also accompanied Deora for the talks held on the sidelines of the meeting of world energy ministers in Jeddah to discuss strategies to calm spiralling crude prices.

The meeting comes in the backdrop of the UPA government coming under attack from the Left for allegedly "dragging its feet" on the pipeline.

CPM general secretary Prakash Karat said in Chennai that "We want the negotiations to continue so that the deal is completed". Trilateral talks have remained stuck for the past few months.


Indian officials at Jeddah said over phone that Deora and Chidambaram also met oil Nigerian oil minister.


Seems like a "deal" has been struck which will allow Karat & Co to "permit" UPA to go to IAEA’s B. of Gs.

Had the UPA agreed to the Left-suggested name (I recollect that according to news reports then, they had said that having a legal background should be a criterion) for the President's post, this stand off might not have arisen. If this theory (I do not think it is a conspiratorial one by any means) is true, then I think UPA have done well by the country, albeit unintentionally, at least to the extent of delaying the ignominious nuclear deal.

I hear from news reports that the nuclear deal signature ceremony may take place by/on Aug 15, 2008. If that happens, then Destiny’s tryst with India would be for the purpose of witnessing the event of India signing away her right to acquire technological independence on the anniversary of her gaining political independence.

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 » 23 Jun 2008 14:08

John Snow wrote:Shiv ji garu>> we are playing for the same team, so it doesnt add to your staure as admin to post about daughters and mothers, I am not a public figure nor are you. So we should not tread on slippery slopes here. As it is the devilish deal has fractured this forum. Lets us not RIP it apart.
With all humility and respect.


I note and accept your views with humility. What is done is done. no more.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

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

Postby sraj » 23 Jun 2008 14:42

Shankar wrote:
Question for ShauryaT or Gerard: would the above cover conversion of RgPu into WgPu?


yes it does since it increases the Pu content

Thanks, Shankar.

Provides an interesting perspective on both the FMCT and CIRUS closure issues!

How long would it take for India to build another DHRUVA? TIA for the info.

China has long linked progress on PAROS with FMCT at the CD in Geneva; it seemed they had allowed this link to be broken in the last couple of years. Don't know if anyone has insight on the latest on this issue.

One possibility: India could collaborate with China at the CD on maintaining the PAROS-FMCT link. There could be an issue-specific congruence of interests here.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

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

Postby sraj » 23 Jun 2008 15:02

Rangudu wrote:sraj,

I'm not China's keeper. You should know that MTCR is not like NSG. MTCR does not include a benefit to China like NSG does. A break with NSG would mean that China loses contracts it just signed with Areva and Westinghouse. MTCR was something China kinda sorta agreed to make Bill Clinton look good for all his China appeasement. There's a difference between shipping missile parts and building reactors in TSP. The former can happen with easy deniability. The latter is much harder to do.

BTW, if you have a point, say it openly. There's no need for this passive-aggressive dance. That kind of baiting and name calling (not by you) is the reason why many deal supporters stopped posting here.

Again, if you have a point, make it openly.

Rangudu,

I am merely trying to follow the logic in your posts. For example:
1. Russia cannot supply anything after these 2 Kudankulam units because of its NSG commitments.

Ques: but there are reports of China supplying more reactors to Pakistan.
2. that is just talk. China will not defy NSG about Pakistan.

Ques: but China is defying MTCR about Pakistan.
3. MTCR is different. China does not get a benefit from MTCR, unlike NSG -- where it will lose Areva and Westinghouse contracts if it breaks with NSG.

Quite apart from the facts (whether China will in fact lose these contracts), would it, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that:

A. since Russia does not need any contracts from Areva or Westinghouse, there is a non-zero probability that it will supply more reactors to India (thus negating your assertion no. 1 above); and

B. China will defy NSG when it is certain that it does not get a benefit any more from it, similar to what it is doing today on MTCR (thus negating your assertion no. 2 above).

BTW, I am sure you have seen the recent article by the retired MEA official under Rajiv Gandhi who handled the Russian nuclear discussions in 1988 in which he states the agreement at the time was for 10X1000 MW units.

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

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

Postby Gerard » 23 Jun 2008 16:19

would the above cover conversion of RgPu into WgPu?


Yes. That would be banned. Paragraph 3 is meant to clarify Paragraphs 1 and 2, not to stand on its own. Those paragraphs specifically mention the amount of Pu239, U233, and U235 and the act of increasing the percentage as production of fissile material.

So while a stock of RgPu could be declared as dedicated for weapons production, activities that raised the proportion of Pu239 (by removal of other Pu isotopes) would be forbidden. This assumes Laser separation (SILEX etc). Laundering the RgPu in the blankets of the breeder would be more egregious, there would be actual production of new material.

I think paragraph 3 is meant to cover recycling and remanufacture of pits.

One possibility: India could collaborate with China at the CD on maintaining the PAROS-FMCT link. There could be an issue-specific congruence of interests here.


The Chinese incentive to sign on the dotted line is quantitative capping of the Indian arsenal (which would be primarily aimed at it). On the other side of the equation is the issue of US NMD with its presumed ability to intercept the quite limited number of Chinese missiles able to strike the US. The big question is how large the Chinese weapons grade stockpile really is. Chinese aren't interested in counterforce targeting and will deter the US with as few weapons as they can get away with. Assuming the Chinese have enough material for their future plans, they may give up PAROS so that they can achieve capping of the Indian arsenal at an early date. The Chinese may decide to go the MIRV/decoy/countermeasures route to overcome NMD rather than treaty restrictions.

Now, if India made it clear that it may agree to FMCT text but will not sign for a few more years, the Chinese incentive for signature goes away.

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

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

Postby Shankar » 23 Jun 2008 16:33

How long would it take for India to build another DHRUVA? TIA for the info.

Atleast 4 years but why Dhruva we can make much bigger one from the design concepts validated in Dhruva and also the 500 mw fast breeder reactor will generate much more fissile material from around 2013/4 .We can also make more 500 mw pressurized water reactors in roughly 5-6 years which we can if we want keep outside safeguard there by increasing the available raw fissile material production for weapons program .

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 » 23 Jun 2008 16:50


Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby Rangudu » 23 Jun 2008 16:55

sraj

I once again have to bow to your superior intellect, not withstanding the logical fallacies inherent in your post. For example, extrapolating stupidly to conclude that "Having contracts with Areva is the ONLY reason to violate/not violate NSG," "NSG == MTCR" etc. Keep believing that Russia will break NSG for India just as China breaks MTCR for TSP.

Consider yourself the logical "winner". Henceforth do not address any questions to me. You obviously know it all. I'll debate with lesser souls.

Regards

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 » 23 Jun 2008 18:50

I hope this has not been posted, and, such topics (Indian capabilities) perhaps needs a thread of its own. A Founder's Day presentation, Oct 30, 2007:

REPROCESSING IN INDIA – DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION AND DEPLOYMENT

Such articles are a must read IMHO.

Furthermore, the likes of 123s should supplement such acts in India.

Viswanthan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 14:38

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

Postby Viswanthan » 23 Jun 2008 19:09

Acharya wrote:
[quote]The business lobby has long reach. They seem to have reached the top to eliminate any obstacle. Just like in BRF[/quote]

Looks like the author of life-threatening email to the commies was an over-enthuiasitic netizen.Bit of an anti-climax

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/23ndeal2.htm

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Johann » 23 Jun 2008 19:41

sraj wrote:Johann: Why shouldn't we all start with taking up PAROS (keeping space free of weapons) before we try to get into the thorny issues involved in global nuclear disarmament. Much less invested so far in space; so should be easier, right?


Depends on whether space weapons are usable will be not, doesnt it? If they're like nukes or bioweapons, of more political than military value then yes, its much more likely to keep them from happening.

On the other hand if its like missile defence, where military use is limited by technological capacity rather than military utility, it would be much harder.

It may be too early tell for sure which it will be - all depends on the ways in which space is actually weaponised. So long as unattributable attacks arent possible, Im not sure that 'conventional' weapons in space will be different from conventional weapons over international skies or in international waters.

If Pakistan has an ASAT weapon courtesy of the Chinese - lobbing ASATs to take out the INSATs and CARTOSAT/IRS in the event of a conventional war would not be a decision anywhere on par with launching a nuclear strike.

Raju

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

Postby Raju » 23 Jun 2008 20:24

watch debate on nuclear deal on NDTV 24X7
LIVE

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/vi ... fault.aspx

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 23 Jun 2008 22:51

>>The business lobby has long reach. They seem to have reached the top to eliminate any obstacle. Just like in BRF

Acharya, are you suggesting that the business lobby is paying off or pressuring BRF admins to promote a pro-deal line? It looks very much like that's what you're suggesting.This means you are claiming that Shiv, Ramana, Jagan, Rakesh, myself and others have been silenced with money or other forms of pressure. In other words, we are either traitors or cowards.

And which obstacle has been eliminated on BRF? Far as I can tell, both those who oppose and support the deal are posting without much hindrance.

Still, I would like to be certain. Are you actually calling some of us BRF admins people who take bribes or otherwise succumb to pressure against the interests of our motherland?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Jun 2008 23:05

Folks This deal is becoming a Yadav Kula Mausalum (the grinding stick which destroyed the Yadavas after the Mahabharat war). So everyone take a deep breath and think about why we are on BRF or else there wont be any unity of purpose.


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

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

Postby satyarthi » 23 Jun 2008 23:10

This deal is a successful test of a 100mt public-opinion-fission-device.

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 » 23 Jun 2008 23:13


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Jun 2008 23:17

satyarthi wrote:This deal is a successful test of a 100mt public-opinion-fission-device.



On the contrary its all fizul baatein! (useless talk or brutus fulmen for the Latin familiar ones!)


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 » 23 Jun 2008 23:23

What Will History Say?

Dr Singh will be judged harshly for the one decision he's hesitating to take ...
Prem Shankar Jha

By the time this appears in print, the Congress-Left coordination committee on the Indo-US nuclear deal will have met for the last time. Bearing this in mind, Dr Manmohan Singh has warned the nation yet again, against not completing the India-US nuclear deal. He reminded us of its huge need for power in the coming years, the collateral damage that relying on coal will do to India's and the global environment and the damage that industry will sustain if it remains locked out of access to dual-use technology which, thanks to the increasing technological convergence brought about by Information Technology, now covers most of the spectrum of advanced technologies in the world. The detrimental impact will grow from year to year. It's the kind that occurs when an individual comes to a crossroads and takes the wrong turn. Nothing much happens to start with, as one road looks very much like the other. It is only hours and miles later that one realises he is hopelessly lost.

Every word he said is true but why is the prime minister making a case for an action that he already has the Cabinet's approval for? Who is he pleading to? Who can he plead to other than himself? The obvious answer is that he was pleading to the Left to come to its senses and show a modicum of patriotism. He is pleading to the confused and faint-hearted in his own party and the members of the NDA to show those same qualities. But he should know better than anyone else that if they had shared his sense of responsibility and deep commitment to India, the deal would have gone through long ago. So what should we read into his eleventh hour reminder to the people of India?

One possibility is that the government has decided to sign the safeguards agreement with the IAEA irrespective of what happens in the coordination committee and is appealing to the people over the heads of politicians. But if it is prepared to do this now, it could have done so many months ago. It has been apparent for some time that the deadline that the Bush administration had given India—of June '08—for clearing the way for the 123 Agreement, overestimated its own capabilities. So rapid have Bush's fall from grace and Obama's rise been that it is doubtful whether Bush could have pushed the agreement through Congress let alone the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the remaining weeks. But only eight days of even this last period of grace are left and the government still remains locked in its self-induced paralysis.

Should the coordination committee continue to dither, Singh will face his final choice. He can call a meeting of the Cabinet and inform them that he is signing the safeguards agreement with the IAEA putting the ball back, however late, in President Bush's court. Or he can continue to do nothing and allow the treaty to join so much else in the dustbin of history.

But what if he does not really have even this choice? What if the reason he has not already done so is that he is not sure of support from his own Cabinet? That could well be the case, for there is abundant evidence that the government is paralysed not so much by the obduracy of the Left as the conflicting fears and ambitions within the Congress party itself. The answer is that this is not a sufficient excuse for inaction. In the final analysis, he is the prime minister, and the buck stops with him. The Indo-US nuclear treaty would have been the finest single achievement by any government in this country's history and it has been Singh's baby from the very beginning. If he takes his duties as prime minister seriously, he has no option but to push ahead with it even at this late hour.

If Singh cannot get it past his own Cabinet, he must resign. And this must not be the gentlemanly resignation that we, the bhadralok, are so good at tendering.It must be the fighting resignation—resignation with the gloves off—that is expected of prime ministers in a Westminster-style democracy. If the Congress is afraid that it will lose the elections next year, if it alienates the 'Muslim vote', let it ask itself what will happen to its chances of coming back to power if its own prime minister, whose name has become a synonym for honesty and sincerity, resigns from his post and leaves the party leaderless nine months before the next election.

As for Singh, it is time he began to ask how he will live with himself after he is no longer the prime minister, and is forced to remember over and over again the decision he did not take. Singh should also consider how history will judge him. He owes it not only to us, but also to himself not to let that judgement be a harsh one.

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

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

Postby satyarthi » 23 Jun 2008 23:41

ramana wrote:
satyarthi wrote:This deal is a successful test of a 100mt public-opinion-fission-device.

On the contrary its all fizul baatein! (useless talk or brutus fulmen for the Latin familiar ones!)

Ditto. To doubt fellow BRites of long standing and demonstrated service is the height of "fizul". As JEM said, we are, and have been, free to disagree. Otherwise such a marathon of heatedly disputed threads wouldn't have happened.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 24 Jun 2008 00:15

>>So everyone take a deep breath and think about why we are on BRF or else there wont be any unity of purpose.

A very good suggestion. In general, I am not disposed towards adopting a confrontational tone. However, a BRF member who has been treated with respect and indulgence by a vast majority of participants for years now has alleged that BRF admins have been influenced by the "business lobby" - as elaborated in my post above.

This cannot be let pass without a request for clarification. What are the grounds on which such an allegation was made? If there are none, then the post must be withdrawn and no more will be said on the subject and it will be set aside without rancour - at least by me - as a comment in the heat of the moment, of which a lot has been generated of late. But we cannot simply let the allegation sit there without challenge.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54823
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Jun 2008 00:33

There wont be any winners left. Truly a vivadh of epic proportions.

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

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jun 2008 00:34

JE Menon wrote:>>The business lobby has long reach. They seem to have reached the top to eliminate any obstacle. Just like in BRF

Acharya, are you suggesting that the business lobby is paying off or pressuring BRF admins to promote a pro-deal line? It looks very much like that's what you're suggesting.This means you are claiming that Shiv, Ramana, Jagan, Rakesh, myself and others have been silenced with money or other forms of pressure. In other words, we are either traitors or cowards.



JEM, Just back from work.
I have used the word 'in' as in 'discussion' in BRF.
It has nothing to do with who owns BR or who feel that they own everything. The discussion recently copied the open media discussion between the left and Congress. It has shown some pushing and shoving and call to reduce open discussion about some subjects or reduce the focus of discussion. The posters may represent some of these lobbies and may want to limit discussion. As long as there is space to disagree about anything in BR it will be a useful forum.

Did not realize that conspiracy has started out of nothing.

Hope it clarifies.

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

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

Postby satyarthi » 24 Jun 2008 00:57

It is one thing to believe that a person belongs to some "business lobby", and another to post that on an open forum without any proof. The problem is compounded when the accused person happens to be a long standing member with great past contributions. How is someone going to defend against such a charge? This is "you farted" game and conspiracy-theorizing rolled into one.

It is evident that people who "sincerely" believe in their conspiracy theories, can't accept that their beliefs are wrong. But perhaps others need to express their disbelief in such theories, if they are posted without evidence.

As I mentioned earlier, conspiracy theories are like "horse grams". They are good for generating only one thing. A lot of hot gas.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 24 Jun 2008 00:57

>>JEM, Just back from work. I have used the word 'in' as in 'discussion' in BRF.

OK, then. Despite the fact that your original post says "they seem to have reached the top to eliminate any obstacle. Just like in BRF" and the bit about "who owns BR or who feel that they own everything", I will take your post above to mean that you did not intend to allege that BRF admins have been bought off or pressured by the business lobby into supporting the deal. Thanks for the clarification.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby Rangudu » 24 Jun 2008 02:18

Acharya,

No one here represents any lobbies, AFAIK. You mentioned something like that about me in the old thread and I requested you to explain.

My understanding of lobbying is that one has to take $$ in return for propagating a certain view. Please explain. Thanks.

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

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

Postby John Snow » 24 Jun 2008 02:19

This thread is the closest thing to Ice station Zebra. :-?

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

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

Postby svinayak » 24 Jun 2008 02:22

Rangudu wrote:Acharya,

No one here represents any lobbies, AFAIK. You mentioned something like that about me in the old thread and I requested you to explain.

My understanding of lobbying is that one has to take $$ in return for propagating a certain view. Please explain. Thanks.

Take it easy. :D It is a conspiracy theory


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests