NRao wrote: it is MHO, that the US will never grant India reprocessing rights unless India abandons her strategic plans. There are really no reliable ways to account for atoms.
Why does India need reprocessing technology? Other than CANDU, the rest of the world is currently in a one pass through LWR mode - until uranium prices rise significantly.
The July 2005 statement was more of a political statement rather than a negotiated agreement. It is clear that early on in the negotiating process, from statements made by AK, that he viewed the benefits of the 123 agreement as "supplementary short term power".
For setting up LWRs to achieve that objective with imported uranium which meets the <20% enrichment guidelines agreed to, India does not need enrichment technology.
What India needs enrichment for (note not enrichment technololgy) is the driver fuel for the AHWRs. And the composition of those fuels is such that no other country in the world knows that better than India. So what does India need technology from any other country for making the MOX fuels for the AHWRs? What India needs desperately for those driver fuels is the uranium feedstock..... not the technology.
The way 123 is currently structured is that it will only provide supplementary power via LWRs or via VVRs. Everything else including the 2nd and 3rd stage continues to be India's sole domain with all its opportunities and constraints intact. But given the electricity shortage in India, this "supplementary power" could be critically useful in the next 5-25 year time frame.
When enough LWRs have been built and enough spent fuel has been accumulated (no supplier nation is going to take any of that spent fuel back), India can negotiate reprocessing of that fuel, because as Kgoan once stated a long time ago.... that spent fuel will then be India's uranium mine.
I think there are two forces in play here. Very broadly speaking, India wants and needs to have all the independence that a NWS has - that was in the J18. The US on the other hand needs to plug the current leaks (created by Bhopali) and any future ones that could potentially arise. The US cannot afford to differentiate - she is fighting for her own survival .... it really does has nothing to do with India per se.
Indian "independence" means current techs + any future research - civilian or strategic. I think we are building walls around India when we restrict it to "needs enrichment for (note not enrichment technology) is the driver fuel for the AHWRs" or "that spent fuel will then be India's uranium mine".
On J18 and AK statement, J18 was originally AK statements put into a political package, not the other way around, and, his statements, IMHO, are situationally forced. (Not mean to be a knock - on anyone.)
On "that spent fuel will then be India's uranium mine", I do not think that is true. Imported spent fuel will not be allowed - Keeda factor and accounting. (Will post the stuff from GNEP - it makes it rather clear.) I am currently of the opinion that even Indian based spent fuel will increasingly come under pressure. I strongly feel that even in the current 12 India fought to keep the things she has kept ....... this is speculation on my part at the moment.
The only way India can make kgoan a very good fortune teller is IF India is will to buck the rest of the gang. Which honestly I cannot see happening. The fear that such acts will lead to more leaks will shut that path.
I think old rules will no longer apply. Just cannot. (Which leads me to believe that this is the best deal India will get....Hmmmm, yeah.)
"India can negotiate reprocessing of that fuel" - true, only if ALL Indian reactors under IAEA accounting. Else the "spent fuel" will remain in India and at cost to India. The US cannot afford to negotiate - potential leaks.
There are other factors that could come into play too.
I was just thinking... always a bad thing to think, I know.
What if I were a farmer... I have heard that compost is the greatest resource for growing vegetables.
What if I sold off all my grassy meadows, and leased my cows to the neighbors, and instead got the biggest compost heap in the district. Encouraged everyone to come and dump their dung and compost on my heap???
Wouldn't that make me the richest dude in the district? Isn't dung far better than milk any day?
India has negotiated the 123 agreement precisely because there is no Bhopali in India. If there was one iota of concern regarding loss of "atoms" from India, you can bet your bottom dollar/rupee that there would be no 123. Consider the mountain of spent fuel from Tarapur over the last 40 years which remains under India's sole custody right now.... even after 1974 and 1998. So the issue has nothing to do with "loss of atoms" from India whether from past or future spent fuel.
The question to ask is: What does India need reprocessing for? Where will the output from the reprocessing plants be used? The answer to that question will determine what India needs and how soon it needs it? To go and ask for for everything under the sun just because the P-5 have it and H&D dictates that therefore India gets it because otherwise India is not equal to P-5 is a non starter.
Ideally, India would like to use the imported fuel to kickstart the AHWR program. But because of the nature of driver fuel, that reprocessing should be done in India and hence DAE's insistence on enrichment and reprocessing in India. AFAIK, it is now an inprinciple approval with a separate agreement to be signed in the future? So worst case scenario is a no approval.... in which case 123 allows India to:
1. Ramp up generating capacity via imported fuel and LWRs with investment in both via the private sector.
2. Concentrate domestic uranium on the civilian side into building up driver fuel stocks for AHWRs and run the spent PHWR fuel through the fast breeders.
or a reprocessing agreement is reached and in addition to above:
1. India can utilize imported fuel directly for AHWRs.
Either way, all this has nothing to do with bums etc. which has been the drumbeat on the forum for the last >1 year.
enqyoob wrote:I was just thinking... always a bad thing to think, I know.
What if I were a farmer... I have heard that compost is the greatest resource for growing vegetables.
What if I sold off all my grassy meadows, and leased my cows to the neighbors, and instead got the biggest compost heap in the district. Encouraged everyone to come and dump their dung and compost on my heap???
Wouldn't that make me the richest dude in the district? Isn't dung far better than milk any day?
The course of the future is never linear. Not very advisable to pawn the family jewels for a pie in the sky. What if...
The neighbors develop a new kind of "fusion" based fertiliser. (They have been spending a lot of money on that, you know.)
Then they indignantly erect a big barricade, declare the "compost" utterly unfit for trading or use by civilized people. And then they sit across the barricade, drinking their milk and honey, while the humble farmer will be left sniffing his pile of dung.
Last edited by satyarthi on 28 Jun 2008 08:16, edited 1 time in total.
Satyarthi, that brings me to the story of the little bird.
The little bird was sitting on a branch shivering in the freezing wind, close to death. Just then a fruit fell off a branch above and hit the bird on the head, so that it fell down to the grass. As it lay slightly dazed, a cow walked by and dumped a good pile of dung on the bird, burying it.
The bird was now in shock, but after a little while, realized that it was feeling much warmer. So it slowly raised its head out of the dung, shook its wings free, and happily started to sing at the top of its voice.
... A hungry eagle heard it, swooped down, and caught and ate it.
Moral of the story: When you are warm and happy in a pile of dung, don't feel compelled to stick your head out and start singing.
The relevance here is that there is a serious move afoot to use India as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. I know what kgoan said, but it does seem like arguing that compost is better than milk or grassland.
Going on a slight technical tangent
CramS said something like “Isn’t worth 1 gm of bean”
And we had some discussion about MT equivalence of different kind of chanas.in Nukkad thread) .
Not to mention N^3 references of energy in hot-air of worthies…
Now we are discussion Dung etc…,
So it is only fair to put some technical details here ..
For gram per gram the energy produced Bean = (about) 4 times that of equivalent TNT (that is 1 gm of bean (eating it) will produce about 4 times as much energy as 1 gm of TNT going boom) Dung = (about) 3 times that of TNT (gm per gm) (It is about 12 MJ/Kg for a pure cow varity)
NEW DELHI: The UPA government is all set to defy the Left's veto and approach the International Atomic Energy Agency by mid-July for the ratification of India-specific safeguards if — as is likely — it secures the support of the Samajwadi Party.
After days of brinkmanship in public and closed-door parleys, it is now clear that Congress is all set to sever its ties with the Left over the nuclear deal with the US if SP provides it the much-needed Lok Sabha numbers.
SP, which has responded positively to feelers from Congress leadership will publicly reveal its hand after it has gone through the motion of consulting the fellow constituents of UNPA on July 3.
Talks between the two sides for an understanding are in an advanced stage and, sources say, proceeding satisfactorily. A 'yes' from Mulayam Singh Yadav will enable Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to tell world leaders, chiefly US President George Bush, at the G-8 Summit at Hokkaido in Japan that his government had, after all, not dropped the deal.
The prime minister has consistently cited the possibility of an embarrassing loss of face with the international community to lobby the Congress leadership for taking the deal through the remaining laps.
If everything goes as per script, a government delegation will leave for Vienna soon after Singh's return to India on July 9, and after the Congress party completes the formality of endorsing government's decision.
However, it's clear that the Congress leadership will baulk if SP does not provide a buffer against Left pullout.
It is not looking at a poll this year, with the scary prospect of inflation exacting a high cost at the hustings. The party's leaders did focus on poll preparedness at a meeting of general secretaries here on Saturday.
Sources, however, said the thrust was on the coming six assembly polls — Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, J&K and Mizoram. The party has, in any case, to limber up for the Lok Sabha polls which even in the normal course are due in March-April next year.
SP's rescue drill may start as early as on July 2 when a key government functionary is to brief Mulayam Singh Yadav and his trusted associate, Amar Singh, on the deal.
Sources close to the party maintain that the SP was open to considering any 'fresh perspective' on the deal: a euphemism for readiness to abandon its previous opposition if its interests elsewhere — from seat sharing in UP to redressal of grievances like 'harassment' by central agencies — are taken care of.
Significantly, the increasingly hostile stand of rival Mayawati against the Centre and BJP's overtures towards her, may help SP leadership with the narrative they would need to justify their about-turn which is crucial to the fate of the deal and the timing of polls.
Unlike the PMO, Congress leadership as well as its allies are not enthusiastic about the idea of having a deal even at the cost of early polls. The concern over inflation and a refreshed BJP apart, the party is hardly in a shape to face the electorate. In fact, the party fears that the Election Commission could well lump the Lok Sabha polls with the six assembly encounters, leaving Congress and its allies in a precarious situation.
Ramana – Since you ended it with a question, allow me to answer it. Since there is a risk of going OT, I will be brief.
Short answer is – Yes. I thought the post was, IMO of course, relevant (else I would not have posted it). Point here is one of the main reason, again IMO, for this deal is the energy need in India. There is a lot of talk about we don’t need nuclear fuel because of alternative fuels. This was an order of magnitude comparison of, (using more correct, PC terms for the those) , ethanol and bio fuels vs uranium fuel (about 1000-10000 times more energy\per gram of fuel) and why, IMO, the deal would be good for us as there is really no good alternative than nuclear power for India (again IMO , of course) and we do need LEU etc.
I did put a “tangent” disclaimer right in the beginning, so one can skip the whole post if one so wants to, but if you think that this post, among all of the 15 pages of the thread, was inappropriate, let me know I will edit/delete it. Of course, as a admin, feel free to do it yourself.
On a more serious note, why don’t you (or some other guru here) write a long post (or an article) analyzing the deal which could be educational to all. Just a suggestion.
The shortage of fuel comes to light at a time when the country is debating on the Indo-US nuclear deal and how it will help infuse life into the nuclear power sector.
“Our nuclear power plants that operate at 90 per cent capacity are now operating at 49 per cent capacity.
Almost 45 per cent of the country’s total uranium reserve is in Jharkhand followed by Andhra Pradesh (25 per cent) and Meghalaya (16 per cent). The remaining deposits are in Karnataka, Rajasthan and Chattisgarh.
“We are now spending Rs 1000 crore to construct a mill in Kadapa district of AP which will have a capacity of 15,000 tonne per annum. This mill converts uranium into fuel to be supplied to the power plants. It will, however be at least three years before we get supply from there,”
I am thinking after reading this, there would be some different voting pattern in the Indo-US nuke BR poll!
Amber G. wrote:
On a more serious note, why don’t you (or some other guru here) write a long post (or an article) analyzing the deal which could be educational to all. Just a suggestion.
Regards.
Someone suggested (on the nuclear deal poll thread) that I was doing some kind of piskological test. That person may have actually piskofied my mind and perhaps my mind does tend to work in terms of analysing thoughts.
I just wonder if the number of people who have voted for "not enough infomation" is a reflection of the fact that after 25 million posts on the subject - there has not been enough clarity and perhaps too much jargon and rhetoric for people to say in clear black and white terms as to what they feel.
In a simple poll I would have left put only 3 options - yes, no and don't know. But I added the 4th option as a selfish reflection of my own mind that says that "I do not have enough information". All the discussion that we had here has probably moved a large number of BRFites from seeing the issue in black and white terms as presented to them by various people to a grey zone in which a fair decision is not possible based on what they have read.
An article in simple BRF terms - no matter how biased it is for or against the deal, would be a great idea. Obviosuly - people will make up their own minds.
Editorial Special Article, The Statesman, June 29, 2008
IS N-DEAL ESSENTIAL?
PM Out Of Sync With Indian Realities
By SAM RAJAPPA
A parliamentary democracy like India must have as Prime Minister a person popularly elected to the Lok Sabha so that his feet are firmly rooted on the soil of the land. Though Manmohan Singh is not the first Prime Minister to reach that position from the Rajya Sabha, he is the only one to shy away from the people’s verdict. Indira Gandhi resigned her Rajya Sabha seat on becoming Prime Minister and got elected to the Lok Sabha in the first available by-election. So did Inder Kumar Gujral and HD Deve Gowda who too were Rajya Sabha members at the time of becoming Prime Minister.
Manmohan Singh got elected to the Rajya Sabha from Assam, claiming to be a resident of Guwahati, which the entire nation knows is false. To substantiate his claim, he produced in the Supreme Court a ration card issued by the Assam government, rent and electricity bills of a house in Guwahati which was not his usual place of residence. With no political base in the country, it is not surprising that Manmohan Singh has been pursuing the bilateral Indo-US civil nuclear co-operation with single-minded determination, even at the risk of disintegration of the United Progressive Alliance which put him in the gaddi in the first place.
Is nuclear electricity essential for India's energy security? Information gathered from the Planning Commission’s projections and other published official records show that it is not. The Planning Commission Expert Committee on Integrated Energy Policy (2006) says: “The country is energy secure when we can supply lifeline energy to all our citizens as well as meet their effective demand for safe and convenient energy to satisfy various needs at affordable costs at all times with a prescribed confidence considering shocks and disruptions that can be reasonably expected.”
To achieve this, India must increase its primary energy supply by three to four times and its electricity generation capacity by five to six times of its 2003-2004 levels. By the year 2030, power generation capacity must increase to nearly 800,000 MW from the current capacity of 160,000 MW. This translates, in simple arithmetic, to an annual addition of about 29,000 MW.
In the event Manmohan Singh succeeds in pushing through the nuclear deal with the USA before President George Bush demits office in January 2009, India will be able to add at the most 30,000 MW by the year 2030 using imported power generation machinery, which works out to less than five per cent of the projected 800,000 MW. Can this provide energy security by any stretch of imagination?
According to the country’s top nuclear scientists, the real issue facing India is whether or not we want “mythical extra energy security through this deal paying thrice the unit capital cost of conventional power plants with the additional burden of subjecting the freedom to pursue an independent foreign policy and indigenous nuclear R & D programme.” The Indo-US nuclear agreement is untenable because it is anchored in US domestic laws, including the Hyde Act. At the height of the no holds-barred sale pitch for the agreement, Manmohan Singh hailed it as India’s “nuclear renaissance.” This was the echo of a phrase coined for the 2002 Washington DC conference of nuclear industry executives and the US government officials to boost the comeback of commercial nuclear power. Subsequent statements of the Prime Minister and sarkari scientists and intellectuals would have us believe that “nuclear renaissance” was the ultimate panacea to make poverty quit India and propel the nation as a super power. A cruel joke on the people groaning under the ill effects of double-digit inflation.
Manmohan Singh is a recognised economist of international repute. If only he had devoted a fraction of his attention to the sorry plight Finance Minister P Chidambaram had landed the country in by his reckless mismanagement of its financial health, the Prime Minister would have done a great service to the people of this country. The prospects of nuclear energy as an option are limited by four unresolved problems: high relative cost, perceived adverse safety, environmental and health effects, potential security risks stemming from proliferation and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes, according to a joint report prepared by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University.
For these risks to be worth taking, says a 2007 report by an Oxford University Research Group, “nuclear power must be able to achieve energy security and a reduction in global C02 emissions more effectively, efficiently, economically and quickly than any other energy source. There is little evidence to support the claim that it can, whereas the evidence for doubting nuclear power’s efficacy is clear.” In short, nuclear power is costly, unsafe, risk-prone, supply-side option incapable of providing energy security and incapable of responding to the challenges of global warming and climate change. What are the alternatives then? With seven per cent of global reserves of coal, providing 56 per cent of India’s commercial energy supply, coal gasification combined cycle process, an emerging technology for clean and efficient coal fueled electricity generation, is worth pursuing vigorously.
India is well endowed with renewable sources of energy. Latest estimates give the potential for wind power at 45,000 MW; small hydro-power at 15,000 MW; biomasspower/co-generation at 19,500 MW and waste-to-energy at 4,200 MW, making a total of 83,700 MW. Of these, only 13 per cent has been exploited so far. India has unlimited solar power and ocean energy, but is unable to exploit these due to lack of sufficient R & D. With estimated reserves of 360,000 tonnes of thorim, India could develop the thorium fuel cycle instead of relying on imported uranium. Former President Abdul Kalam never missed an opportunity to stress the importance of developing the thorium cycle route but it fell on deaf ears of the UPA government. Thanks to the efforts of the earlier governments, the first ever commercial Fast Breeder Reactor of 500 MW capacity is nearing completion at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, and three more of similar capacity are in the pipeline. India could also step up exploitation of domestic oil and gas reserves, besides speeding up implementation of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.
The Washington DC based UN Foundation, working on ways to combat global warming and climate change, had put together a compelling document titled “Realising the Potential of Energy Efficiency.” The document states that EE can produce almost immediate results with existing technology and proven policies and do so while generating strong financial returns that exceed those from investments in conventional energy supply. Achieving an annual rate of EE improvement of 2.5 per cent is well within our reach. Through this means alone the country could bring about savings of around 80,000 MW of electricity by 2030 and effectively combat global warming and climate change. The Planning Commission Review does recognise the importance of EE but has not done anything on this front. While we have not heard a word on this high potential, eco-friendly, cost-effective and totally indigenous solution, Manmohan Singh has been drumming up ad nauseum the alien, costly, risk-prone nuclear option.
On 12 June, he pleaded with Indian Foreign Service probationers to remove the political hurdles in the path of the Indo-US nuclear agreement as if it is in their hand. Infrastructure augmentation without optimization is a resource guzzler and could make the Indian economy FDI dependent. It would force us to adopt alien models of development instead of going in for indigenous solutions which alone could provide security in any field, most of all in electric energy.
The writer, a veteran journalist who retired from The Statesman, is based in Chennai.
Here are some points - looking at the forest instead of the trees. (My apologies if I am rehashing subjects already discussed extensively in BR.)
1) This deal gives India (per former Indian President Abdul Kalam), SHORT term beneifts until thorium reators become available - which should be in about 20 years.
2) In the absence of the deal, market forces would have found alternative energy sources - which may be cheaper compared to nuclear. Then the benefits of the deal are ZERO. Does India understand capitalism - even though the present Prime Minister is an economist?
3) In any case nuclear power will never exceed 5% of India's energy requirements.
4) Thus, the deal MAY confer doubtful, TACTICAL, short term benefits for India.
5) On the other side India does not get a much deserved NWS status unlike the P-5. Making it worse, India will be enshrining its inferior status through its signature of the deal.
6) Neither is there a quid pro quo by which the US will support India for permanent membership of the Security Council -even if it be without a veto.
7) If the West had wanted to, now was a politically and diplomatically convenient opportunity to justify giving India NWS status or permanent Security Council membership. They did not care to.
Thus, this deal is a STRATEGIC loss for India.
9) By 2050 (lifetimes of today's children), India will be No. 2 or 3 globally economically. Then whether India's leaders like it or not India will have global roles and responsibilities.
10) At that time there could (will?) be a life and death struggle for global supremacy with the No. 1 China (somewhat akin to the cold war of the 20th century between the US and the former SU - the No. 1 and 2 of that time).
11) Then, tying India's hands through this deal will severely disadvantage India.
12) This deal also does not help the US and the West. They will be harming a natural ally - that practices Western democracy, freedoms, transparency, capitalism, having over billion people and is a future super power. Without India, the West will be divided and defeated by a powerful China long term.
13) Such a deal could benefit the 180+ small and medium powers (such as Pakistan and even countries such as Britain, France and Russia). Not global powers like the US and China and the future global power India.
14) This deal will benefit China since it disadvantages India.
15) A respectable country like India should not sign a major international deal with the argument that it can be broken if needed. These are not principled arguments.
16) The leaders of Western countries are elected and under oath to further the interests of their respective countries - not India's. They love this deal because they THINK it is good for their respective countries (I don't think so). They do NOT care about India's interests. It is silly if not immature for India's leaders to talk about a loss of face if the deal is not signed. The leaders of India are under oath to protect India's interests not their faces.
So, I believe that looking at the deal from the perspective of a forest instead of the trees, without getting entangled into details,
this deal may give small (even that is questionable) SHORT term TACTICAL benefit. On the other hand, India will be giving up STRATEGIC autonomy that will come back to haunt India when India is alone (as the No. 2 world power) confronting China (No. 1) - decades from today. Such a confrontation cannot simply be ruled out.
I sincerely hope India's leaders understand capitalism, long term challenges from China, and not sign any document that affirms an inferior status for India.
MANMOHAN MISLED INDIA ON IRAN PIPELINE TO FORCE NUKE DEAL
SONIA CONGRESS PARTNERED AMERICAN BUSH INSTEAD OF KARAT
By M.J.AKBAR
29 JUNE 2008
George Bush went to war in Iraq in order to create a new Middle East.
Six years later, much to the shock of his allies and the horror of perceptive Americans, he has. The shock and horror arise from the fact that the Middle East has been changed by the Bush intervention in a direction sharply divergent from America’s fundamental interests as perceived by the Bush doctrine.
The Middle East was a term coined in 1903 by an American naval historian and strategic thinker, at the very height of British power across the world, when the Boers had been defeated in South Africa, the Ottomans had been virtually displaced from their most important colony Egypt, the Arabian Sea confirmed as a British lake and India itself was preparing to celebrate the glory of the Raj with a glittering durbar summoned by the Viceroy of Viceroys, Lord Curzon.
India was a bulwark of this concept called the Middle East, a fortress of trade and imperial might that had neo-colonised China, and supplied the bulk of the troops for British expansion. The rupee was king from Singapore to Jeddah.
When George Bush’s team visualised their new map of the world they included India in what they termed the ‘Greater Middle East’. India was not an intrinsic part of the new power flows, but it was integrated once again as the fortress of the East.
Since India was run by Indians rather than British allies, Indians had to be co-opted into the engineering of the new design. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the man for the job.
Six years later Project Greater Middle East is tottering all across this strategic map. In Delhi the Singh government has been unable to bear the burden of an alliance with Bush. The Congress encouraged the illusion, with the help of a cabal of analysts, publicists and lobbyists, that the Left was a lapdog rather than a watchdog, and could be either appeased by a bone or silenced with a stick. When the moment came to choose, the Congress stood with Bush instead of Prakash Karat.
The official excuse for this decision is energy. But this is deception.
Dr Manmohan Singh deliberately sabotaged a much cheaper and more immediate source of energy for the country when he deliberately undermined the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, raising one false spectre after another to mislead the country, so that it would seem that there was no option but to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal.
We have forgotten now that the first objection he raised, three years ago, was that financing would be a problem. This is not raised anymore since it is obvious that finance would be easily available at a time of rising energy prices. Countries like Russia are ready to invest in overseas projects of this nature even with equity participation as the present Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (chairman of Gazprom from 2000 to 2008) has confirmed. A second scare was puffed up: the unrest in Balochistan. This did not travel when Iran and Pakistan laughed it off. The real problem was always the fact that American legislators had made India’s relations with Iran a condition of their support for the deal. The best oil minister we have had in memory, Mani Shankar Aiyar, was suddenly removed from his job because he was more sceptical of America than the Prime Minister’s latitude permitted.
In a delicious irony, American policy towards Iran has shifted 180 degrees. In the last few days America has announced that it will open a diplomatic presence in Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's Tehran. This has to be seen in the context of both the original break with Tehran after the Islamic Revolution and the dramatic seizure of the American embassy three decades ago, and Bush denunciation of Iran as the villain in chief of the Axis of Evil. This should be sufficient to resurrect the ghost of Senator Henry Hyde, who ensured that there were 18 references to Iran in the Act that gave legislative approval for the Indo-US nuclear deal. Add to this the fact that Bush has repeatedly threatened war to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and we begin to get an idea of the degree of capitulation — or return to realism — in American policy.
America is learning to live with the consequences of Bush's war. The single biggest beneficiary of the Iraq misadventure has been Iran. Before 9/11 Iran was chained by international diplomatic sanctions and hostile neighbours: a virulently anti-Islamic Revolution Saddam Hussein and a virulently anti-Shia Taliban.
America cleared the Taliban out of Kabul and Saddam out of Baghdad for its own reasons, but no one thanked America more than the Ayatollahs in Tehran, although they may not have advertised their applause. Even as America got swamped by two wars that refused to end, Tehran used the new opportunity to strengthen its allies till they rose from the margins to the frontlines: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
At the heart of the Arab conflict with Israel, Iran's allies are in control: Hezbollah dominates Lebanon while Hamas continues to increase its influence in Palestine. In another dramatic turnaround, Israel has been forced into substantive peace talks with Syria, and has agreed to place the Golan Heights, advertised since 1967 as sacrosanct to its safety, on the negotiating table.
These shifts pale before the impact that American intervention has had on Iraq. For better or worse is not the real issue; there are new facts and we have to deal with them. Under Saddam, Iraq was a secular, anti-Ayatollah dictatorship. Under America, Iraq has become a Shia dominated democracy with a religious ethos and excellent relations with Iran, another fact that the Bush administration finds it convenient to ignore. The Baghdad government is also beginning to assert itself against America. Washington wants a security pact with Baghdad which is a carbon copy of the pact that the British imposed on Iraq in 1930 as a condition of granting “independence”. The one significant difference is that while Britain was content with two permanent military bases in Iraq, America wants 58. It was in this blithe spirit that Bush dismissed a question about when all American troops would leave the country. America still had troops in Korea, Japan and Germany, so why not forever in Iraq? Permanent is a very American term in Bush’s lexicon. Even the pro-American administration in Baghdad is beginning to baulk at this language of hegemony. Nor will the Arab world remain a mute spectator.
The change that Bush wanted in the Middle East has merely begun but the arc will not move in the direction of Bush’s dreams.
The one success that Bush can flaunt is in North Korea, the only region where Bush opted for diplomacy — hard and meaningful — instead of the rush of war. Given the enormity of damage he has done elsewhere, this is minor relief.
There is a Hindi proverb that might sum up the Bush achievement: khoda pahaar, nikli chuhiya (he dug a mountain, and there emerged a rat).
MANMOHAN MISLED INDIA ON IRAN PIPELINE TO FORCE NUKE DEAL
SONIA CONGRESS PARTNERED AMERICAN BUSH INSTEAD OF KARAT
By M.J.AKBAR
29 JUNE 2008
AoA !!!!!
Wah wah.... . . Shri M.J.AKBAR has robustly nailed ManMohan Singh and "Sonia Congress".
Isn't MJ Akbar the person who was unceremoniously removed from editorship of an important and independent print media?
Being an editor he chooses his words carefully (he uses the term MISLED).
IS N-DEAL ESSENTIAL?
PM Out Of Sync With Indian Realities
By SAM RAJAPPA
Thanks Raju & Kati for bringing it to fore.
Interesting to note the pulse of BRFites on the BRF poll.
It's indeed gratifying to note that Sam Rajappa, The Statesman's Mumbai Correspondent in the 1990s has joined the pantheon of BRF certified Nooklear experts among journalists.
Rajappa is indeed a very “capable” journalist with all the contacts in the right places - he had to be being the point man in Mumbai for the great and late C R Irani - The Statesman's lustrous (as in shining; luminous and not as in illustrious) former Editor in Chief.
Anything you needed fixed (and written) you knew the person to call.
While BRF spends more than a million thread to understand the issue, Rajappa in one paragraph outlines the alternative roadmap for India:
India is well endowed with renewable sources of energy. Latest estimates give the potential for wind power at 45,000 MW; small hydro-power at 15,000 MW; biomasspower/co-generation at 19,500 MW and waste-to-energy at 4,200 MW, making a total of 83,700 MW. Of these, only 13 per cent has been exploited so far. India has unlimited solar power and ocean energy, but is unable to exploit these due to lack of sufficient R & D. With estimated reserves of 360,000 tonnes of thorim, India could develop the thorium fuel cycle instead of relying on imported uranium. Former President Abdul Kalam never missed an opportunity to stress the importance of developing the thorium cycle route but it fell on deaf ears of the UPA government. Thanks to the efforts of the earlier governments, the first ever commercial Fast Breeder Reactor of 500 MW capacity is nearing completion at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, and three more of similar capacity are in the pipeline. India could also step up exploitation of domestic oil and gas reserves, besides speeding up implementation of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.
I'm sure there will be a followup article by Rajappa in which he will explain - in about 1,000 words - how to finance and make into a reality all the stats in the bolded part of the quote. (I'm an optimistic bloke. I'm also sure that before I die I will come face to face with a true and bonafide Alien. )
Please also note how Abdul Kalam is given a timely remineder that the UPA government "ignored" his entreaties about the thorium cycle. I wonder why?
Off course the following disclaimer applies: IMVVVHO
Last edited by amit on 29 Jun 2008 14:22, edited 2 times in total.
Tilak wrote: My mistake!, it's there in the second clip. .
But I am curious, why the US gov. has not said it publicly, when it was willing to say "We don't mind a minority Govt. signing up"
Tilak,
Glad you found the sound bite. I would have helped you out but was a bit busy over the past few days and so did not have time.
I hope you now realise why I am a bit confused about what exactly is the BJP roadmap.
About my point of the BJP claiming ownership of the N-tests and thus guardianship of the deterrent, it's there in the tone used by Sinha in the first clip. It's more a qualitative assessment on my part rather than quantitative.
As to US not saying that it will not change the Hyde Act etc, as far as I can recollect Condelessa Rice said something to that effect quite a while back.
And finally:
I personally don't think any of the major political parties who are players in this drama have covered themselves in glory.
The Congress acted in a very childish manner in trying to apportion all the credit for the deal to itself, ignoring the BJP's contribution.
The BJP, initially at least, acted in a very hurt and petulant manner instead of providing constructive opposition and suggestions.
And off course the less said about the Left parties the better.
Not only do we refuse to see Karat’s stand as being based on principle, we are also curiously unmoved by the deal itself. Yes, it’s probably a good thing, we say vaguely. In the 21st century, we need to be aligned with America. We’ll get a little more energy. But beyond that, there’s very little excitement.
The truth is that opposing an alliance with America has some emotional resonance with Communists. But aligning with George Bush does not exactly get Congress voters to stand up and cheer. You could argue that this is because the deal has not been sold properly to the Indian public — and I think you would be right — but that’s entirely the government’s own fault.
There is much more support for the deal within the commentariat — people who write columns and comment pieces. But these commentators would not necessarily vote for the Congress even if the government fell on this issue. They would say what a wonderful chap Manmohan was and then cheerfully go off and vote for whoever they liked anyway.
Once the UPA is a minority government, two things follow. One: its moral authority to push the nuclear deal through is severely eroded. Some countries may even use the government’s lack of legitimacy to stall the deal. Two: the government can no longer dictate the timing of the election. The Election Commission could set an October date or club the election with the Assembly polls that are due around then. That would be disastrous for the Congress.
This could be the worst of all outcomes: the government falls on an issue of principle and morality but then fails to push the nuclear deal through because the world regards it as now lacking in moral legitimacy. Plus, the Congress loses the election in October.
Moreover, by forcing a confrontation on the nuclear deal when its priorities should be to fight inflation and to try and stave off an economic crisis (which could be imminent if we are not careful), the government may look as though it has lost both its nerve and its sense of proportion. The Prime Minister may look like a man who runs in the face of adversity.
Now, it’s all up to the Prime Minister. His priorities, his sense of what’s right for his party and his concern with his place in history — statesman or Kamikaze? — will determine the government’s next move.
Is there a link that you can provide for that MJ article? Thx.
Here is my take. A lot of decisions are made based on info that we have on hand and projections based on it. MMS is NOW in a very bad situation. The Economy that he himself said that needs support to chug at 8-9% is faltering and India as a food supplier is in very deep trouble. Couple that with rising "fuel" prices and most of his reasons to push this deal through have already vanished.
Now, MJ does make some resounding arguments. Time will tell how true they are, but, they do sound probable.
Just trying to be PC as possible.
However, I can now see the 123 getting killed in the US Congress. Perhaps Bush should exchange one Congress for the other.
Now the arguments to kill the deal are getting a bit overstrained in their speciousness, aren't they?
So the economy is not growing at 8-9% (the rest of the world is plunging, BTW). Is this a reason why infrastructure development should be abandoned? Or did the lack of infrastructure just show up for the killer that it is? Shiny glass exteriors, but no airconditioning or lights. Shiny cars with chauffeurs, but an average speed of 1 mile per hour (Bangalore, "Airport Road"). "Five Star" restaurants and First Class trains, no functioning restrooms. INDIA SHINING (by daytime onleee pliss).
So fuel prices are rising (both uranium and fossil). Fossil shortages are looming. So we should abandon the drive to make nuclear plants?
The need for NUCLEAR rather than other type of power plants has been explained a long time ago - only nuclear plants can provide the "baseload" reliability of 85+ percent. Without stable power supplies, advanced manufacturing has no hope of competing.
Yes, the US Congress may now kill the deal, the opponents of India having been handed the opportunity on a platter because of the Indian delay. This is like having your teammate in front of an open goal with the ball at his feet and the defenders down behind you, and you going and standing in front of your teammate obstructing and :
Whyphor repheree says onlee ONE goal if he kicks? UNFAIR! I am not willing to let him kick the goal unless they agree that we will get FIVE goals!
Sure, sooner or later the opposition rushes back to make sure your opportunity is lost. We can go back to bellyaching about the unfairness of the world.
Probably in October, Dubya will attack Iran, and then the price of oil will reach $250 per barrel.
Good thing there is so much cowdung available - burning that should be quite adequate for the sort of Indian economy that is "perfectly adequate" according to those who now declare that India does not need nuke plants.
20 years from now, the Indian economy will have reached equilibrium - the NRIs send the remittances by slaving 80 hour weeks year-round in increasingly harder and less-paying jobs, the govt. hands it all over to Saudi Arabia for oil to subsidize the lazy whinos in India. Saudi Arabia hands it to Pakistan to fund terrorism.
Abandoned? Dunno. But the original arg was that the deal would support a 8-9% eco. IF that is true, then why does the opposing arg not hold - it is after all an economic decision? Fuel prices rising select the cheapest one, or both nuclear and gas. Base load is OK, nothign against it, just that it still is just 7-8% contribution for near term (2050) or so. For longer term all these will have to support Thorium and not a GE based tech. Bad soccer analogy. Both Congresses have their own dynamics, the one in the US will follow her own - unless of course the one India dumps all good alternatives for this deal. I have no doubts that the US Congress will pass the deal IF Indian FP is "congruent" to that of the US - dump Iran even if the US engages Iran. Even then the question is this deal worth all that - to India that is or even more future Indians? (Remember kids born in India in 2000 will be 50 years old and facing any issues from this deal.)
However IF it is a strategic decision, then it is a different story. Then we need to drop 8-9% eco talk and hook on to MJ. Then I can fully understand. I have no problems at all if Indian leaders want to be in one camp or the other (I may hold a personal view as to which camp, but that is besides the point).
I think MJ's article has exposed too much. IF The PM wants to still go ahead, he will. But will not be PC, IMHO.
IF burning cow dung is bad, tell Dubya not to attack Iran. Simple. And, that is the issue. Does what other nations do hurt India or not.
I think both India and the US should leave the decision to the next admins. Both sides are badly tainted IMHO.
India, the US and other nuclear powers must lead an effort to frame a new nonproliferation and disarmament framework, an influential Republican leader has said, asking Washington to pay “particular attention” to its “key” relationship with New Delhi.
enqyoob saar is no dung matter expert, he all nookliar onlyee 100% sudh. Where as I am one.
Saar you dont know but good Cow dung, dung ,or even goat dung. They are a traded commodity whose price is sky rocketing, thanks to Bushwant Singh!.
I come from a humble family of farmers, no IIT only RIT Rural Institute of Technology undergrad and MBA of UM.
for starters
a) cow dung bricketts are sold for cooking and heating after Fusioning them into layerd cakes that are slapped on to zirconiam, clay and silicon walls in rural areas, some times even on cinema posters of MGR, ANR, NTR, Rajkumar, Jaya, Hemamalini etc to add a alloying element called sterllar ions. ( only found in stars!)
b) There are Gobar gas plants (not bio logical plants, just bio plants or bio machinary) that turn Gobar into cooking gas which incendentally glows True BLUE! This is true fast breader, as it leaves compost for the farm as source for energy to the new rice crop! while giving cooking a new taete. Its is high value commodity which is traded in large volumes. But its mass to energy pack ratio is small.
c) The cow dung raw with heavy moisture contnet is also used in place of cement to bind ( some IITian call it binding energy, with equations like yee = yum see square.) mud thached walls of a hut ( as in Pizza hut)
d) The cow dung and other dung too is used directly as fertilizer especailly with oil going high and higher.
the trading is also done in barter, dung vs quintals of rice shorgum, peanuts etc.
e) finally Goat saar your favorite subject. It used to cost Rs 500/- for a company of goats numbering 90 to hundred goats to sleep in one acre per night. I am quoting 1979 prices when goald was just 900 Rs for 15 grams. Or Rs 1800 per troy oz, or $100 per ounce. and oil at $17 per barrel. The only condition is the goats have to be woken up three times in the night so that they PEE and SH%& so that the acre of land gets fertilized.
So dont belittle cow dung! Our civilization grew on the power and strength of Dung not on Nooklear experts of Bushwant singh and his trusted Lts.
Last edited by John Snow on 29 Jun 2008 20:29, edited 3 times in total.
enqyoob wrote:
Good thing there is so much cowdung available - burning that should be quite adequate for the sort of Indian economy that is "perfectly adequate" according to those who now declare that India does not need nuke plants.
****deleted****. Cow dung is a legitimate part of Indian economy.
Last edited by Rishi on 29 Jun 2008 21:11, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Admin scissorhands. Removed objectionable content
India, the US and other nuclear powers must lead an effort to frame a new nonproliferation and disarmament framework, an influential Republican leader has said, asking Washington to pay “particular attention” to its “key” relationship with New Delhi.
That is a just expectation (that NP needs a new framework). However, now, the Senator needs to help India by coming up with a viable civilian nuclear deal - one that helps both and actually all sides.
But, this article brings out the differences in the goals between the two nations: Indian is eco, the US is non-proliferation. The need of the hour is to ensure that one does not step on the other.
On the cow dung economy, the dung needs to be collected ASAP, before global warming gases escape into the air. That is the trick to keep the West from complaining and taking the focus off the issues realated to 123.
the dung needs to be collected ASAP, before global warming gases escape into the air.
This requires training for the cows to "go" only in approved locations - i.e., Containment Facilities subject to IAEA, FAO, and USDA inspection with Full-Scope Safeguards. Wonder if there will be an FMCT agreement implied (Fe*** Material Containment Treaty). This is all getting too complicated.
Paramu, John Snow,
No one is belittling cow dung, or its importance etc and you don't have to go to IIT or study advance nuclear reactor design... just have basic, high-school chemistry level knowledge of electron-nucleon binding energy and compare it with nucleon-nucleon binding energy to calculate (again high-school level math) to calculate the order of magnitude between dung (about 12x10^6 joules/Kg) and a U235 (7x10^13 joules/Kg) - a factor of 10 million. (Put it another way about 10,000 tons vs 1 kg)
Substitute coal/oil for dung and LEU/Natural U/Thorium for pure U235 etc.. and you still have a factor of about 10,000 or so.
Of course, there are other considerations than just these theoretical values, (and honestly my calculations could be a little off- but not by far) but order of magnitude considerations could keep us honest.
The problem is that the two have different and at times opposing goals. No matter who and how the 123 is written both sides are bound to have unhappy puppies. Very, very, very little in common. The US is after proliferation. India on both sides of the fence needs separation (FBR for civilian and military for strategic). How can India satisfy the US? It cannot. India wants NWS status and if there is a country that deserves it it is India. But the US cannot supply a crew driver because of the separation plan. So, 123 cannot work. Thus cow dung, etc, tangential topics. To be expected.
Amber G. wrote: John Snow,
....the order of magnitude between dung (about 12x10^6 joules/Kg) and a U235 (7x10^13 joules/Kg) - a factor of 10 million. (Put it another way about 10,000 tons vs 1 kg)
Substitute coal/oil for dung and LEU/Natural U/Thorium for pure U235 etc.. and you still have a factor of about 10,000 or so.
Of course, there are other considerations than just these theoretical values, (and honestly my calculations could be a little off- but not by far) but order of magnitude considerations could keep us honest.
Yes saar we dont need maassa bush, rice , tellining us dont do I ran, dont do I rock, with Dung facilities, if there was an iota of dung expertise in our cabinet, we could have black mailed uncle, his poodles aussies just like the chinese or master exploiters TSP, fleece and black mail the west. You give US U fast or I will make my cow dung and belch at 60 times per second, making a dung cloud go round the world , obscure your vision of democracy and nookler free world.
More than fast breeder dependent on U2 we should fast breed cows and more dung to flig all around us, no need of Gas cetrifuze, just Gas and a little hot air.
Any time home grown granma style dung power is more reliable than 1000 times magnitude of foreign supplied U2 stuff. Actually the real Gandhi saw the future ahead and always had a goat to go around.
The present day Gandhis dont beleive in GOAT no more, they just are thorough bred horsess for the courses. Sad days have fallen on swatantra bharat.
AmberG, the brilliant solution to the "1MT test" demands has just become obvious. Why should India agree to express "yield" in terms of kilograms of trinitrotoulene, which is anyway supposed to be a Chinese invention? India should express yield in terms of indigenous culturally appropriate technological units onlee. 1kg U = 10KT "yield". So 100kg U = 1MT "yield". Quaid-e-Duh!
"India on both sides of the fence needs separation (FBR for civilian and military for strategic). How can India satisfy the US? It cannot."
The implication there is that ppl hope the "deal" (I mean the vastly better one awaiting a BJP govt) will have the US sending technical assistance to build and test nuclear bombs in India? I agree that might happen, when India becomes a US "protectorate" like Bikini Atoll.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent India from using something developed in the military sector to generate power for civilian use, so sorry, that argument doesn't work either. For that matter, India can put jumper cables on the batteries of a nuclear-powered submarine and use them to power coastal cities. Who's going to stop that?
Thus, this deal is a STRATEGIC loss for India.
)
. 
:
