Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Jun 2008 02:45

From Pioneer, 24 June 2008

Aussies are getting obnoxious. Or is it their HMV speaking? So what this means is NSG is not enough for them!

No uranium until India signs NPT: Australia

Neena Bhandari | Canberra

Australia's Labour Government will not lift its ban on uranium exports to India as long as the latter doesn't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told Sky News on Monday: "We've had as a party (Labour) a long standing policy position of only exporting uranium to countries who are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. India for its own reasons is not a party to that."

"Australia's relations with India needs to be taken to a new level and as I have said in the last few days, a new relationship for a new century. Now uranium is just one small part of that," Smith said. At the fifth Australia-India Foreign Ministers Framework Dialogue held on Monday morning, Australian Foreign Minister and India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee underlined the strong bonds and enduring shared interests that underpin this bilateral relationship. :(

Smith and Mukherjee signed on Monday an Extradition Treaty and a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, underscoring the willingness of the two countries to collaborate and address criminal matters in a practical way. {must be fallout of the Hanif case.} In a joint statement, the Ministers reaffirmed the two Governments' commitment to taking bilateral links to a new, higher level. Smith announced he will be visiting India in September.

The Ministers reiterated their strong support for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The two countries decided to establish regular chief of defence force level talks with the inaugural talks scheduled to take place in Australia in the near future. Both Ministers agreed to strengthen intelligence cooperation, including on counter-terrorism issues. They noted the need for practical cooperation in areas such as intelligence, law enforcement, border security and counter-terrorist financing and money laundering.

The Ministers discussed at length existing and new forms of cooperation in a wide range of areas, which exemplify the growing depth and breadth of this partnership.
-- IANS



I get the feeling that the whole things was about going through the motions and not get to anything substantial. All those agreements are to give the Ausies more insight and info from Indian files to feed their GOAT. Its a one sided deal to look like two sided. What does India get that matters? Nicer treatment for future docs caught up with cousins antics?

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

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

Postby Gerard » 24 Jun 2008 03:02

At the fifth Australia-India Foreign Ministers Framework Dialogue held on Monday morning


These need to be held every ten years... with joint animal husbandry assistance to Papua New Guinea as the major topic of dialogue.

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 » 24 Jun 2008 03:23

I don't see how the Australian :P matters. Note:
1) India does not need imported Uranium (right?)
2) India can find numerous non-NSG suppliers of Uranium waiting to sell U to India any time. (right?)
3) India is going to sign the NPT anyway or MMS has already agreed to do so (right?)
4) If India just lets off a few 1-5MT bums, the Australians will hop off like 'roos with their tails up, and rush to supply more Uranium to India immediately (right?)
8)

Anyway, this is all posturing. Australia is just negotiating to get a higher price. From China or India or Japan.

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

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

Postby ramdas » 24 Jun 2008 03:56

Dr. P. K. Iyengar, Dr. A. N. Prasad and Dr. A Gopalakrishnan, all of whom were very senior DAE authorities, have opposed the deal. That alone should be enough reason to stop this deal from proceeding further. The commies have so far been doing the nation a great service on this issue. Hope they succeed in scuttling the deal completely.

Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 529
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

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

Postby Abhijit » 24 Jun 2008 03:56



SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 24 Jun 2008 06:22

How much of thorium will be used as blankets in these FBRs? Is it 70% Th mix?

I thought the mainstay would be FThBR? to make U233 <- Th232

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

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

Postby satyarthi » 24 Jun 2008 06:26


There is lot of meat in this report even though it claims to be excerpts from a release by the scientists. Can someone locate the full release?
The central issue about the IAEA safeguards agreement has been the doubt as to how "India-specific" these are . In particular , since it is distinctly clear from the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement that no uninterrupted fuel supplies have been guaranteed in these documents for reactors which India will place under safeguards , the government had assured that this defect will be corrected in the safeguards agreement . Since the IAEA was all along known to be no fuel-supply guarantor , there is serious doubt whether Indian negotiators obtained any assurance in this regard.
...
As per the 123 Agreement , the government has all along asserted that the IAEA safeguards will have "provisions for corrective measures that India may take to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Taking this into account, India will place its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity" . The nation would like to know clearly what these "corrective measures" will be , before plunging headlong into this deal . India being merely allowed to withdraw from safeguards the Indian-built PHWRs we may place under safeguards , and that too after stripping them of all spent & fresh fuel and components of foreign origin , is no corrective step at all because such action does not ensure uninterrupted operation of these civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Besides , this relaxation does not apply to the imported power reactors , which will use up the bulk of our investments in nuclear power ; these units will perpetually stay under safeguards , even after fuel supplies are denied .The Hyde Act prohibits the US Administration from directly or indirectly (through the IAEA or other countries) assisting India with life-time fuel supplies after suspension of the Deal . Therefore , the Government owes a clarification in this regard to the UPA-Left Committee and the public.
...
The 123 Agreement states that the imports under the deal "shall be subject to safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards Agreement between India and the IAEA and an Additional Protocol, when in force". While the actual draft of the Additional Protocol (AP) applicable to India may have to be negotiated and agreed to at a later date , it is absolutely necessary that a prior agreement between the IAEA and India on the essential features of such an Additional Protocol must be reached simultaneous with the finalization of the safeguards agreement and before signing it . The most intrusive actions under safeguards are always taken on the basis of this protocol , including the "pursuit clause" which permits interference with our non-civilian programs on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion . India needs to make it clear what the limits are beyond which we will not entertain any IAEA action or intrusion , and it should be clear that a standard Model Protocol applicable to non-nuclear weapon States will not be acceptable to India. The leverage to debate and get the kind of restricted additional protocol we want will be entirely lost once a safeguards agreement alone is first put in place and the installations put under safeguards . As we understand , the limitations within which India is willing to enter into the Additional Protocol regime was neither discussed by Indian negotiators at the IAEA nor do they appear in the safeguards draft or its attachments. The government needs to clarify their thinking on the additional protocol before proceeding to the IAEA Board .

...
The government had all along pledged to secure an unqualified right to reprocess spent-fuel and even termed India's right to reprocess "non-negotiable" . But , in the 123 Agreement , what has finally been obtained is merely an empty theoretical right to reprocess.

The actual permission to reprocess will come after years, when a dedicated state-of-the art reprocessing plant is built anew to treat foreign fuel , along with a host of allied facilities .

There will be a large number of safeguards & additional protocol issues related to this , and all these hurdles will have to be crossed to reach the beginning of reprocessing . Much of the fundamental basis on which all this will be done has to be discussed and settled now at the outset, while the overall safeguards agreement is being finalized . But , the government has not done this exercise during the recent set of negotiations with the IAEA , and this deficiency will come to haunt India in future unless it is removed.


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

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

Postby Gerard » 24 Jun 2008 06:48

In 1979 the Soviet Union sold India 250 tonnes of heavy water, under IAEA safeguards that included perpetuity as well as pursuit clauses.

Indo-US Nuclear Agreement and IAEA Safeguards
http://www.idsa.in/publications/strateg ... andran.pdf

In the Indian context, only kinds (ii) and (iii) of INFCIRC/66-type
safeguards agreements are in force: kind (ii) for the Rajasthan Atomic Power
Station (RAPS) arising from the pursuit and perpetuity provisions of
safeguards on the heavy water supplied by the Soviet Union (INFCIRC/
260; Nov. 17, 1977) and kind (iii) for (a) the supply of Koodankulam power
station from the Soviet Union (INFCIRC/360; Sep. 27, 1988) and (b) for
all nuclear material at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) –
INFCIRC/433 and 433/Mod.1; March 1 and September 12, 1994,
respectively following the unilateral submission for application of
safeguards by India after the termination of the 30-year Indo-US Bilateral
Agreement of 1963 (INFCIRC/154/Pt. I). No other Indian nuclear facility
and associated nuclear material is under safeguard


In 1982, these "pursuit" and "perpetuity" clauses were the source of much friction

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... _2803.html
France suspends talks with India on the delivery of enriched uranium fuel for the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) because of a disagreement over appropriate safeguards. Nuclear industry sources say that India has refused to submit to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) controls. The disagreement seems to revolve around the "perpetuity" and "pursuit" clause in the IAEA safeguards. "The 'perpetuity' clause calls for international supervision of the nuclear power plants, while the 'pursuit' clause provides for international supervision of the reprocessing of spent fuel." The Indian foreign ministry says France did not make acceptance of the above clauses a condition for the supply of nuclear fuel when India and the United States worked out an agreement on the issue. However, France maintains that Indian officials are well aware that both France and the United States adhere to IAEA regulations. An Indian foreign ministry official says, "It is for France now to make a political decision." Indian foreign secretary M.K. Rasgotra informs the US embassy in New Delhi that it was the responsibility of the United States to ensure that France would supply the nuclear fuel under the terms of the 1963 agreement. Rasgotra warns that if France persists in its demands for extra safeguards, India would abrogate the 1963 agreement and reprocess the spent-fuel and use the derived plutonium to run the Tarapur plant on mixed-oxide fuel. India's position is that since France is a surrogate supplier of nuclear fuel, it does not have any right to demand additional safeguards, not included in the original 1963 agreement.
Last edited by Gerard on 24 Jun 2008 07:26, edited 2 times in total.

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 » 24 Jun 2008 06:51

I have not read this article in detail, but, if IIRC, there is no provision to take back spent fuel. And, they have no provision to reprocess it either.

Kick-the-can philosophy cannot work well for such situations.

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

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

Postby Neshant » 24 Jun 2008 09:05

reposted and worth a read :

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

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 » 24 Jun 2008 09:22

Re. the roos. I dont think its all about the price. Not to say that the right price cannot be an effective catalyst, but Kevin Rudd is IMO AUS's Manchurian Candidate. Its not just India that he doesnt look favorably upon. He has consistencly pissed off Japan, Indonesia and India. I have read that he was diplomat before turning to politics, so he's not speaking for the sake of speaking.

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

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

Postby Johann » 24 Jun 2008 09:30

pradeepe wrote:Re. the roos. I dont think its all about the price. Not to say that the right price cannot be an effective catalyst, but Kevin Rudd is IMO AUS's Manchurian Candidate. Its not just India that he doesnt look favorably upon. He has consistencly pissed off Japan, Indonesia and India.


I have to agree - there have been difficulties with the US as well in the same period. However, I dont think Rudd's current foreign policy can last beyond a single term in office. China simply isnt so useful that Australia can afford alienate both America and most other regional powers without paying unpalatable costs.

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 11:43

Not to mention that Rudd's efforts will be suffocated to some degree even when he is in office. It is not easy for the Aussies to turn on a dime on these matters. Still, I expect Indian concerns will be close to last on their priority list...

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 » 24 Jun 2008 16:43

Make the IAEA agreement public
Editorial

The Manmohan Singh government reckons it is make or break time for its civilian nuclear deal with the Bush administration. The bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement (the ‘123’) concluded in August 2007, read in the context of the Hyde Act and the developing strategic partnership with the United States, has faced unbudging political opposition from the Left parties that keep alive the minority United Progressive Alliance regime. The main opposition, the Bharatiya Janata Party, is against the deal on quite different grounds. Wednesday’s meeting of the coordination committee of the UPA and the Left on the nuclear issue could well be the last in the series. The Left parties were persuaded to let the government go to the International Atomic Energy Agency secretariat and negotiate a draft safeguards agreement, which covers all Indian civilian nuclear facilities to be placed under safeguards once the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement goes into effect. What that ‘frozen text’ contains is something of a mystery. Among the key issues the “India-specific” safeguards agreement is supposed to address is the country’s right to take unspecified “corrective measures” if international supplies of nuclear fuel for the safeguarded reactors are disrupted for any reason. India insisted on this right in exchange for agreeing to place its civilian reactors under “in perpetuity” safeguards during the protracted negotiations in 2006 on the Indian separation plan. This provision was duly incorporated into the March 2, 2006 separation plan as well as in the 123 text.

How the Indian and IAEA negotiators have squared the circle of perpetuity and corrective measures remains to be seen. There are five legal steps that need to be taken if the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal is to be implemented. The frozen text represents only half of the first step, which is to get approval for the safeguards agreement from the IAEA’s Board of Governors. Getting the Nuclear Suppliers Group to amend its export rules to allow civilian nuclear exports to India is the second step, after which the 123 agreement will require U.S. Congressional approval, India’s signature on the IAEA safeguards agreement, and its filing a declaration with the IAEA on precisely which facilities are civilian and are to be safeguarded. The UPA government has expressed its unwillingness to share the safeguards agreement even with its political allies, on the ground that it has not been sent yet to the IAEA’s Board of Governors. This is an untenable argument. The UPA’s allies are being asked, in effect, to support an agreement sight unseen. Moreover, the IAEA safeguards agreement is not some routine affair. It is part of a project that vitally concerns India’s nuclear energy and strategic future over the long term. Non-consultation, non-transparency, and a secretive mindset characterised the handling of the nuclear deal from the time it was initiated in July 2005. The safeguards agreement negotiated with the IAEA secretariat must be placed before the UPA-Left coordination committee on Wednesday — and immediately thereafter made public.

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 » 24 Jun 2008 17:00

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


And, a very nice recap of events on a time-line.

IAEA agreement cannot be made public. Uncle will not allow it to happen.

Raju

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

Postby Raju » 24 Jun 2008 17:26

NRao wrote:
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


And, a very nice recap of events on a time-line.

IAEA agreement cannot be made public. Uncle will not allow it to happen.



the Govt can't make the IAEA agreement public nor can it show it to its closest allies.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST THAPPAD TO PRO-DEAL FOLKS.

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 » 24 Jun 2008 17:43

Raju wrote:the Govt can't make the IAEA agreement public nor can it show it to its closest allies.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST THAPPAD TO PRO-DEAL FOLKS.


Raju _ I don't see how anyone who wants the deal to be signed will feel any pain at this. Can you explain? If people who support the deal take the attitude that they are satisfied if GoI is happy - then this thappad business means nothing.

On a different note why are you making references to an idea that people who are for the deal are going to be physically hurt by this? What piskology lurks behind those words? Did anti-deal people somehow feel physically hurt by something done by those who are for the deal and that this "virtual physical blow" against them is some kind of "mooh tod jawab"? ( :D - that is another "physical violence" reference)

To me these references to "virtual physical violence" in a discussion like this one appear to be a fascinating pointer to the way minds see and perceive people whose opinions are different. :) That could explain the analogies and colorful descriptions used. Just curiosity about the choice of word.

Raju

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

Postby Raju » 24 Jun 2008 18:22

shiv:
GoI as in DAE never raised this need for nuclear tech.
GoI in the case of nuclear deal is represented by DAE and not by the political leadership.
In matters nuclear and scientific GoI goes by the advice of DAE or Scientists.
It is for the first time that this natural chain of protocol has been circumvented.

Secondly it is amply clear that the reason why they are unwilling to show the IAEA agreement to the public or its closest allies is because they are hiding something from both. If the deal is transparent and straightforward then they would not have hesitated to show it to whoever demanded it. I have spoken to senior bureaucrats in GoI on this for feedback and their stands on the deal previously range from ambivalent to pro-deal but they are lost for words when it is mentioned to them that the IAEA agreement is being treated as top-secret document and is being hidden from public as well as allies. They are by political leaning pro-Congress but this deal has made them suspiscious of Sonia's intentions.

Never before has the Govt of India behaved in such a secretive manner. They cannot recall any precedent of such happening. Their shock and loss of words resemble reactions after receiving a 'Thappad'.

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

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

Postby Rye » 24 Jun 2008 18:34

Raju wrote:
Secondly it is amply clear that the reason why they are unwilling to show the IAEA agreement to the public or its closest allies is because they are hiding something from both.


The third and MOST likely option is that there are third-parties NOT party to the deal who should not see this languange since it is favourable to India -- do people even bother to think how self-defeating it is to force the GoI to reveal the language when that is not in India's interests? Of course, one will not see that possibility if the fundamental assumption is that the PM/GoI/DAE have all "sold out" and are trying to con the conspiracy theorists.

So in order to get reassurance, people here who diss the CPI(M) as chinese puppets, want to reveal the contents to not only the Chinese ahead of time but also reveal the contents to other countries that do not field a political party like CPI(M) in India (so that they can come up with good objections in the NSG meeting, presumably) -- do people here even bother to think before they post?

What if the GoI really does have good intentions? Perhaps people should reanalyze reality with that assumption just as a thought experiment...we all know that the GoI is corrupt, stupid, etc. etc., but surely suspension of disbelief is nothing new to anyone here.

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 » 24 Jun 2008 18:49

the Govt can't make the IAEA agreement public nor can it show it to its closest allies.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST THAPPAD TO PRO-DEAL FOLKS.


I would not go that far, however, I do agree with a similar sentiment.

The reason being, I am very inclined to believe that the Hyde Act AND 123 deal are GNEP in an Act clothing.

I am inclined to believe that the agreement with the IAEA is very intrusive and that AK had to fight very hard to keep Three Phase and strategic assets out of the hands of the IAEA and by extension the US.

There is no doubt in my mind that the US is very paranoid about proliferation - as Gerard put it because of the Bhopali Keeda and as N^3 put it accounting for all atoms. This has actually nothing to do with India. BUT, I very strongly believe that the US and West do not want any open end for sure (as in Indian three phase) and would like to reduce the number of accountants in the future to some manageable numbers that THEY can manage.

It is my opinion that the US will never allow India to develop nuclear techs on her own either - IF that is true, then there is no need to buy greatest and latest techs......the US/France/Russia will supply only what they think India can use (under GNEP).

GNEP will become synonymous with "Civilian nuclear". And, the need for strategic assets will be reduced if not eradicated.... that would be the goal at least.
Last edited by NRao on 24 Jun 2008 18:54, edited 1 time in total.

Raju

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

Postby Raju » 24 Jun 2008 18:53

Rye writes:
So in order to get reassurance, people here who diss the CPI(M) as chinese puppets, want to reveal the contents to not only the Chinese ahead of time but also reveal the contents to other countries that do not field a political party like CPI(M) in India (so that they can come up with good objections in the NSG meeting, presumably) -- do people here even bother to think before they post?

What if the GoI really does have good intentions? Perhaps people should reanalyze reality with that assumption just as a thought experiment...we all know that the GoI is corrupt, stupid, etc. etc., but surely suspension of disbelief is nothing new to anyone here.


How can an international agreement be signed in secret ? It has to come before the IAEA and NSG at some point of time and there going to be debates on it. So that cannot be an excuse for hiding a deal from examination at public level.

And secondly about good intentions, when it has been amptly made clear that India neither needs the Uranium to cross into the thorium stage and neither does it need the 'Light-water' reactors which are about the only thing that this deal is going to provide and still the share in power is measly 6%. Then the trust in good intentions get really low.

those believing in good intentions of the deal are actually falling for real conspiracies and not just theories.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

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

Postby vsudhir » 24 Jun 2008 19:54

To warn SP, CPM plays religion card: ‘Muslim majority opposes deal’

NEW DELHI, JUNE 23: This has long been a whisper campaign by the Left but for the first time, a CPM Politburo member has come out to claim, on the record, that an “overwhelming majority of Muslims” are opposed to India’s nuclear deal with the United States.

CPM Politburo member M K Pandhe, who is also chief of the CPM’s trade-union wing, CITU, said this today in the context of conflicting signals from the Samajwadi Party over its stand on the deal.

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

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

Postby Rye » 24 Jun 2008 20:07

Raju wrote:
And secondly about good intentions, when it has been amptly made clear that India ...


Sorry, none of it is "amply clear" except for those who are already prejudiced. Everyone and their brother-in-law has their own theories of energy demand in the future...including those who base their energy estimates on the average Indian "sacrificing for the sake of the country" and using candles and gaslights.

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 20:24

Rye saar has a correct vision into this mamla of not telling Indian Political Parties. It is also correct on the part of congress lead coalition as the CPM Police have been singing all along this song to unison.

"Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you

.....
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I’ll be watching you

(hit song By the group Police)

Not to expose everything to coalition partners is ok in principal, but most hurtful thing to the CPM is they came to know that "uncle said dot tell anyone in your country ". Uncle says, Anyway I will tell my congress about this agreement as they have to know otherwise they will Hyde me alive. People of India who are interested can then google and find out anyway. no?

We need power yesterday, that has been ruling party Motto!.

I am confused though PRC is also a member of so called PRC5 (Proliferation Restriction Committee of P5). So would IAEA report to them "What lies beneath" (a good movie). Its ok if Indian public don’tknow any thing about this IAEA, How many can actually read after 'A' where is the bijlee d to read this and shed some light?

The advisors of GOI are people from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. OK Kashmir is disputed because PM is from Punjab, M K Narayanan (NSA) from deep south , so every interest will be protected, like the last time when JLN and K. Menon took international fora by storm ( by making World record in longest speeches, getting PRC Permanent Membership, Taking Kashmir to UN etc. etc. now poor CPM is being accused of you know what)

Yes Rye saar may say CPM may passi the info to some other entity like fellow Indians who should not know!

Conspiracy can only be alleged, never be proved.
If it is proved then it becomes fact and no longer conspiracy? No?

utterly confused and dumb founded videsi desi!

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

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

Postby Rye » 24 Jun 2008 20:41

John Snow, was unable to parse your post, but my only point in the previous post is that there are more likely reasons for not revealing the text to public. Generally, doing the conspiracy dance on the basis of "facts" from the "poor CPM" does not cut it. A lot of BS analysis on these threads have been based on CPI(M)/NPA disinformation people here seem to be sucking all of it up with a straw.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Jun 2008 22:20

A lot of churning going on.

Google Cache of news stories on deal

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

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

Postby Katare » 24 Jun 2008 23:18

NRao wrote:I have not read this article in detail, but, if IIRC, there is no provision to take back spent fuel. And, they have no provision to reprocess it either.

Kick-the-can philosophy cannot work well for such situations.


This is factually incorrect statement.

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

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

Postby Katare » 24 Jun 2008 23:28

Raju wrote:shiv:
GoI as in DAE never raised this need for nuclear tech.
GoI in the case of nuclear deal is represented by DAE and not by the political leadership.
In matters nuclear and scientific GoI goes by the advice of DAE or Scientists.
It is for the first time that this natural chain of protocol has been circumvented.

Secondly it is amply clear that the reason why they are unwilling to show the IAEA agreement to the public or its closest allies is because they are hiding something from both. If the deal is transparent and straightforward then they would not have hesitated to show it to whoever demanded it. I have spoken to senior bureaucrats in GoI on this for feedback and their stands on the deal previously range from ambivalent to pro-deal but they are lost for words when it is mentioned to them that the IAEA agreement is being treated as top-secret document and is being hidden from public as well as allies. They are by political leaning pro-Congress but this deal has made them suspiscious of Sonia's intentions.

Never before has the Govt of India behaved in such a secretive manner. They cannot recall any precedent of such happening. Their shock and loss of words resemble reactions after receiving a 'Thappad'.


Lies, lies and al lies Raju sahib.

Kakodkar led the negotiations with IAEA and he has concluded them with his team. Political leadership neither has capabilities, mandate or competence to negotiate this kind of the agreements.

No agreement is ever made public until the day of its signing. Govt works with in broad guidelines agreed upon by politicians and than bureaucrats, technocrats, legal experts and administrators work out the deal. Cabinet approves it and by design of our political system majority of parliament is behind it.

If everything needs to be discussed and done in parliament than what is the need to have a govt? Parliament can run the country and bureaucrats would execute their well discussed decisions made with consensus

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

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

Postby Prabu » 24 Jun 2008 23:31

ramdas wrote:Dr. P. K. Iyengar, Dr. A. N. Prasad and Dr. A Gopalakrishnan, all of whom were very senior DAE authorities, have opposed the deal. That alone should be enough reason to stop this deal from proceeding further. The commies have so far been doing the nation a great service on this issue. Hope they succeed in scuttling the deal completely.



This should be the last nail in the coffin !

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

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

Postby Prabu » 24 Jun 2008 23:40

ramana wrote:From Pioneer, 24 June 2008

Aussies are getting obnoxious. Or is it their HMV speaking? So what this means is NSG is not enough for them!

No uranium until India signs NPT: Australia

Neena Bhandari | Canberra

Australia's Labour Government will not lift its ban on uranium exports to India as long as the latter doesn't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told Sky News on Monday: "We've had as a party (Labour) a long standing policy position of only exporting uranium to countries who are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. India for its own reasons is not a party to that."

"Australia's relations with India needs to be taken to a new level and as I have said in the last few days, a new relationship for a new century. Now uranium is just one small part of that," Smith said. At the fifth Australia-India Foreign Ministers Framework Dialogue held on Monday morning, Australian Foreign Minister and India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee underlined the strong bonds and enduring shared interests that underpin this bilateral relationship. :(

Smith and Mukherjee signed on Monday an Extradition Treaty and a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, underscoring the willingness of the two countries to collaborate and address criminal matters in a practical way. {must be fallout of the Hanif case.} In a joint statement, the Ministers reaffirmed the two Governments' commitment to taking bilateral links to a new, higher level. Smith announced he will be visiting India in September.

The Ministers reiterated their strong support for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The two countries decided to establish regular chief of defence force level talks with the inaugural talks scheduled to take place in Australia in the near future. Both Ministers agreed to strengthen intelligence cooperation, including on counter-terrorism issues. They noted the need for practical cooperation in areas such as intelligence, law enforcement, border security and counter-terrorist financing and money laundering.

The Ministers discussed at length existing and new forms of cooperation in a wide range of areas, which exemplify the growing depth and breadth of this partnership.
-- IANS



I get the feeling that the whole things was about going through the motions and not get to anything substantial. All those agreements are to give the Ausies more insight and info from Indian files to feed their GOAT. Its a one sided deal to look like two sided. What does India get that matters? Nicer treatment for future docs caught up with cousins antics?



Yes Ramanaji, Very right ! This is what many scientists and BRfites (including me, i started my very first post opposing the deal !) are telling from the beginning ! And many conspiracy theories are growing stronger by all such news reports and adamant GOI adds confirmation to this !!
Last edited by Prabu on 24 Jun 2008 23:44, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Katare » 24 Jun 2008 23:42

vsudhir wrote:To warn SP, CPM plays religion card: ‘Muslim majority opposes deal’

NEW DELHI, JUNE 23: This has long been a whisper campaign by the Left but for the first time, a CPM Politburo member has come out to claim, on the record, that an “overwhelming majority of Muslims” are opposed to India’s nuclear deal with the United States.

CPM Politburo member M K Pandhe, who is also chief of the CPM’s trade-union wing, CITU, said this today in the context of conflicting signals from the Samajwadi Party over its stand on the deal.


These communists have made one of the weakest PM in India outta MMS who could have been the best PM ever. What an irony that one of the two founding fathers of India's liberalization has to lead a govt who’s jugular vein is in the jaws of eternal enemy of reforms and liberalization.

They have no position but to oppose any relationship of any kind with the USofA which, incidentally, is also an "antidote for communism".

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 » 25 Jun 2008 00:22

This is factually incorrect statement.


Waiting ..................

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 25 Jun 2008 00:39

No need to shout using CAPITALS. A simple reiteration of facts is enough.

Also there were reprots of his being ill and not seeing anyone. That could account for the files piling up. Besides why is the electronicfication implemented by RG not used to preclude old style files stacking up?

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

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

Postby Prabu » 25 Jun 2008 00:48

ramana wrote:No need to shout using CAPITALS. A simple reiteration of facts is enough.

Also there were reprots of his being ill and not seeing anyone. That could account for the files piling up. Besides why is the electronicfication implemented by RG not used to preclude old style files stacking up?


Ramanaji ! Appologies for Capital letters ! corrected already ! Illness may possibly added to this mess,but basic reason being, opposition to the "deal opposition" :D

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Postby putnanja » 25 Jun 2008 00:49

Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor’s massive safety vessel installed

CHENNAI: The construction of the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, crossed “a mega milestone” on Tuesday when its massive safety vessel, a critical component, was installed inside the reactor vault.

The cavernous vessel, made of special stainless steel, weighs 160 tonnes. It is 13.5 metres in diameter, 13.5 metres in height and 43 metres in circumference. Seventy petals were welded together by Larsen and Toubro to make it.
A spectacle

It was a spectacular sight as a heavy-duty crane with a long boom gingerly lifted the vessel from inside a tall supporting structure on the ground. As it dangled in mid-air, the thermal insulation panels on its outer wall dazzled in contrast to the greenish waters of the Bay of Bengal in the background. The crane then slowly swung around the vessel over an aerial distance of 57 metres and lowered it precisely inside the concrete reactor vault, which is 13.8 metres in diameter and 17 metres in height.

As the critical operation, which lasted two hours, ended successfully, applause rang out from several hundreds gathered around.

Preparations got under way from Monday night with Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), present at the site.

The PFBR, which will generate 500 MWe, will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel and liquid sodium as coolant. The safety vessel will prevent the liquid sodium in the main vessel from coming in contact with the reactor vault. The main vessel will be placed inside the safety vessel.
A milestone

Dr. Kakodkar described the event “the most important milestone in the history of India’s Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) programme” and “a very happy moment.” He told The Hindu, “It is a great effort on the part of a large team and I congratulate the entire team led by Prabhat Kumar, Project Director, PFBR.”

Mr. Jain called it “the beginning of the march towards reaching maturity in building breeder reactors.” Other components of the PFBR were in an advanced stage of fabrication. “We are on course for the completion of this prestigious project,” he said.
Challenges

Mr. Prabhat Kumar said handling the large-sized, heavy, thin-walled safety vessel posed several challenges. It had to be lowered within a narrow radial gap of 160 mm without any impact on the vault so that the thermal insulation panels would not be damaged.

Baldev Raj, Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, said the vessel was a difficult component to install. “It was manufactured to world-class specifications and it will send a strong message about our capability in building fast breeder reactors,” he added.

The PFBR will be built at a cost of Rs. 3,500 crore and attain criticality in September 2010.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

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

Postby Prabu » 25 Jun 2008 01:08

RaviBg wrote:Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor’s massive safety vessel installed

CHENNAI: The construction of the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, crossed “a mega milestone” on Tuesday when its massive safety vessel, a critical component, was installed inside the reactor vault.

The cavernous vessel, made of special stainless steel, weighs 160 tonnes. It is 13.5 metres in diameter, 13.5 metres in height and 43 metres in circumference. Seventy petals were welded together by Larsen and Toubro to make it.
A spectacle

It was a spectacular sight as a heavy-duty crane with a long boom gingerly lifted the vessel from inside a tall supporting structure on the ground. As it dangled in mid-air, the thermal insulation panels on its outer wall dazzled in contrast to the greenish waters of the Bay of Bengal in the background. The crane then slowly swung around the vessel over an aerial distance of 57 metres and lowered it precisely inside the concrete reactor vault, which is 13.8 metres in diameter and 17 metres in height.

As the critical operation, which lasted two hours, ended successfully, applause rang out from several hundreds gathered around.

Preparations got under way from Monday night with Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), present at the site.

The PFBR, which will generate 500 MWe, will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel and liquid sodium as coolant. The safety vessel will prevent the liquid sodium in the main vessel from coming in contact with the reactor vault. The main vessel will be placed inside the safety vessel.
A milestone

Dr. Kakodkar described the event “the most important milestone in the history of India’s Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) programme” and “a very happy moment.” He told The Hindu, “It is a great effort on the part of a large team and I congratulate the entire team led by Prabhat Kumar, Project Director, PFBR.”

Mr. Jain called it “the beginning of the march towards reaching maturity in building breeder reactors.” Other components of the PFBR were in an advanced stage of fabrication. “We are on course for the completion of this prestigious project,” he said.
Challenges

Mr. Prabhat Kumar said handling the large-sized, heavy, thin-walled safety vessel posed several challenges. It had to be lowered within a narrow radial gap of 160 mm without any impact on the vault so that the thermal insulation panels would not be damaged.

Baldev Raj, Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, said the vessel was a difficult component to install. “It was manufactured to world-class specifications and it will send a strong message about our capability in building fast breeder reactors,” he added.

The PFBR will be built at a cost of Rs. 3,500 crore and attain criticality in September 2010.


Congradulations !! Hats Off ! fast breeder is tyhe key to the Indfia's future ! Let us protect it at any cost !

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

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

Postby Gerard » 25 Jun 2008 01:10

Nuclear history being made at Kalpakkam
For the first time, an 80-tonne safety vessel was successfully erected in the reactor walls of Kalpakkam.
This marks the beginning of installation of critical equipment including the nuclear reactor.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 25 Jun 2008 01:14

OK both of you stop. No more attacks on each other.
Thanks,ramana

I could warn you both but then after a certain number you get banned automatically. So I am being kind. Kapiche?

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

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

Postby Katare » 25 Jun 2008 01:19

NRao wrote:
This is factually incorrect statement.


Waiting ..................


I didn't quote anything because you didn't quote any source for your original statement.

I am just trying to ask everyone to focus on facts and issues and limit your feelings, fears and political beleives.

Added later........

Article 6.iii of 123 agreement

With a view to implementing full civil nuclear cooperation as envisioned in the Joint Statement of the Parties of July 18, 2005, the Parties grant each other consent to reprocess or otherwise alter in form or content nuclear material transferred pursuant to this Agreement and nuclear material and by-product material used in or produced through the use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, or equipment so transferred. To bring these rights into effect, India will establish a new national reprocessing facility dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under IAEA safeguards and the Parties will agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing or other alteration in form or content will take place in this new facility. Consultations on arrangements and procedures will begin within six months of a request by either Party and will be concluded within one year. The Parties agree on the application of IAEA safeguards to all facilities concerned with the above activities. These arrangements and procedures shall include provisions with respect to physical protection standards set out in Article 8, storage standards set out in Article 7, and environmental protections set forth in Article 11 of this Agreement, and such other provisions as may be agreed by the Parties. Any special fissionable material that may be separated may only be utilized in national facilities under IAEA safeguards.


USofA would have a right to take back spent/reprocessed fuel back from India if the deal is terminated. USA will have to compansate India for the cost of material, residual value of plant and handling/transporting cost.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests