Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

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

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

Post by Gerard »

One danger of the Left's brutus fulmen
Should that not be brutum fulmen?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

The Present Loksabha division on Vote of Confidence looks like:

With UPA
---------
. 153 - INC
. 36 - SP
. 24 - RJD
. 16 - DMK
. 11 - NCP
. 6 - PMK
. 4 - LJSP
. 3 - RLD
. 2 - MDMK (rebels)
. 1 - BNP
. 1 - J&K PDP
. 1 - IUML
. 1 - RPI
. 1 - NLP
. 1 - SDF
. TOTAL SURE = 261

. Favorable but still Unclear
- -------------------------
. 5 - JMM
. 2 - J&K NC
. 1 - Trinamool Congress
. 1 - MNF
. 1 - AIMIM
. 4 - Independents
..........Mr. Mani Charenamai (Manipur)
..........Mr. Sansuma Khunggur Bwiswmuthiary (Assam, Bodo)
..........Mr. Thupstan Chhewang (J&K, Leh)
..........Mr. Harish Nagpal (UP, Amroha)
. TOTAL FAVORABLE = 14

. Tricky and Undesired Customers
- -------------------------------
. 3 - TRS - Only if Telangana is to acceded
. 2 - JD(S) - Most probably will oppose instead
. TOTAL TRICKY = 5

..................................................................................
..................................................................................

With NDA
---------
. 130 - BJP
. 12 - Shiv Sena
. 11 - BJD
. 8 - JD(U)
. 8 - SAD
. TOTAL = 169

With Left Front
--------------
. 43 - CPI(M)
. 10 - CPI
. 3 - RSP
. 3 - AIFB
. 1 - Kerala Congress(J) [1 Member cannot vote]
. 1 - JD(S) Rebel - Mr. Veerendra Kumar
. 1 - Independent - Dr. Sebastian Paul
. TOTAL = 62

With Third Front
----------------
. 17 - BSP (almost member)
. 3 - SP Rebels (with BSP)
. 5 - TDP
. 2 - AGP
. 1 - Independent (Mr. Babulal Marandi of JVM)
. TOTAL = 28

Other Opposed
--------------
. 2 - MDMK
. 2 - JD(S) ???
. 1 - NPF
. TOTAL = 5

TOTAL OPPOSED = 264

It would be difficult for the Opposition to increase their numbers beyond 264. The question is whether the government will win a SIMPLE MAJORITY or an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY.
Last edited by RajeshA on 12 Jul 2008 22:43, edited 3 times in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

joshvajohn wrote:Is there going to be split in CPIM? they may be heading for a split on the basis of Nuclear issue!! as Basu and Bengali coms seem to speak against the move to work with BJP to vote against the government. I do not know whether people vote against secretly against CPIM leaders?

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/334647.html
The Communists are still trying to digest the previous split. IMHO, there will be no split. All those opposed to Karat, will swallow everything he dishes out, but maybe if the Communists do not have a say in the next Central Government or if they suffer very badly in West Bengal (which will most certainly happen if Congress and Trinamool come together), then Karat will be sidelined in the long run.

However I have a suspicion that Karat's days are numbered, maybe another 3 years.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

Image
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

@Acharya

There is a lot of confusion out there, as far as numbers is concerned.

According to my information:

1. JD(S) is tilting to the Opposition column, because Sonia Gandhi and Karnataka Congress are loath to do a deal with Deve Gowda.
2. TRS is similarly a hot potato for Congress.
3. NPF, Nagaland People's Front have already said, they will vote against the Government.
4. JMM will hold a parliamentary committee meeting and then decide. Mr Shibu Soren is still unhappy with Congress, and is in contact with NDA.
5. There are at the moment 3 SP rebels, not 2: Munnawar Hasan, Jai Prakash Rawat, Raj Narain Budholiya.
6. AIMIM still has not decided, the Muslim Factor weighing down heavily on their decision.
7 There are 4 Independents in play. Congress has made some comments about support from them, but these are just claims.

By the way, the table is cooler. :wink:
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

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

Post by Muppalla »

Lots and lots of money changed hands and the government is expected to win. The idea is to continue with the deal even in case the government falls. That is the reason behind the haste in IAEA approach so that the process could be continued during the caretaker government.

Every agency, mafia, blackmailers, countries interested in this deal are helping the UPA government to complete the process.

Rain or shine - pass the deal.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Post by Arun_S »

Cross posting form the IAEA document thread:
Arun_S wrote:
Suraj wrote: Don't your lifetime cost list the combined figure of capital cost and continuous operational costs, rather than just the latter ? What does the $100 billion component for the LWRs constitute, for example ?
Two separate things:
  • 1) When I said ">>although I challenge to say why settle for high lifetime cost when there is option for lower cost!" I am mentioning only the cost of running and maintain the facilities to operate the reactor I.e. reactor + spent fuel yard for cooling, reprocessing plant and fuel rod fabrication. I am not including the cost of acquiring these infrastructure in the first place that per std project planning are catagorized as Capital Cost.

    2) The $100 billion component is just the capital cost of acquiring the LWR reactor. It is based on internationally accepted (and reported by AK in his PPT) $2000/KWe capital cost per KW electricity generation times the 50GWe that AK's graphs it on page 13 of his PPT presentation for teh year 2020.
    50GWe X $2000/KWe = $100 Billion
Let me also show the basis and breakup of other numbers:

3). 100 year reactor operating life is the norm for new reactors including AHWR (one can easily find reference in DAE/BARC website).

4). To operate 50GWe over the assumed 100 year life time will need from first order approximation ~1,513,000 tonnes natural Uranium. of that :
  • i) 1MWe-Year generation in LWR or HWR requires completely fissioning 1.21Kg of fissile material but since Natural U has only 0.7% of fissile U235, that corresponds to needing to buy 173kg of Nat-U (for simplicity let us keep out second order effect like discharge enrichment, that will make the number even worse).
    ii) Now LWR need enriched fuel. So assuming from the 0.7% U235 available in in Nat-U, enrichment process leave a depleted Uranium tail with U235 enrichment of 0.3%, the amount of Nat U required for running 1MWe of LWR is thus = 173 Kg/((0.7-0.3)/0.7) =>303 kg Nat-U to run a year LWR at 1MWe.
    iii) So for 50GWe that AK envisages involves buying and enriching 50,000MWe*303kg = 15,150 tonnes of Nat-U per year, so for 100 year one will need to buy 1.515 million tonne nat U.
    iv) Cost of natural uranium in metal market is $68/Lb assuming it holds for next 6 years and goes down (forget about upside for the time being) so it will cost at current prices $226.5 Billion. Enrichment cost for to LWR level enrichment will cost 77 billion. The net total, assuming no profit for the commercial enterprise and middle man that is = $303 billion.
5). Cost of building FBR is definitely higher than a LWR or PHWR. The conventional wisdom is 2 to 3 times. So I assume it will be $5,000/KWe compared to $2000/KWe for non FBR reactors. AFAIK this does not include the cost of building backend facilities required to run the reactor liek cooling yard, re-processing and fuel fabrication.

So 330 GWe for LWR based FBR capacity that AK perprots (on slide# 13)for 2050 will cost 330,000 MWe X $5,000,000/MWe = $1650 Billion.

6). Indian 3 stage fuel cycle envisages feeding the deficit neutrons of multiple AHWR (based on Thorium) reactors from a FBR. For Wattage to Wattage the ratio IIRC 1:1 or 1:2 (I.e. 100 MWe FBR able to excess fuel to drive 200MWe AHWR) depending on when they reach FBR with metallic fuel rod rather then Oxide or Carbide based fuel element. In the first few decades of technology improvement that ratio will be lower. Assuming an average of slightly lower than 1:1 ratio between FBR and AHWR the average capital cost comes to ~$3750/KWe. Again I am not including the cost of building back-end facilities required to run the reactor like spent fuel cooling yard, re-processing and fuel fabrication.

So 275GWe for LWR based FBR capacity that AK purports (on slide# 13)for 2050 will cost 275,000 MWe X $3,750,000/MWe = $1031 Billion.

That should be enough to start to think about weakness of Shri Kakodkar's power point presentation.

That was a rather long post and given the paucity of time I have fulfilled 7 good deeds quota for the week.

Thanks for listening.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Post by Arun_S »

Shri B.Raman's latest article recived via email.
INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL: IN PERSPECTIVE
By B.Raman

It used to be said of former US President Ronald Reagan that he was a bad policy-maker, but a good communicator. His communication skills were so good that he could make a bad policy look good and a policy failure seem a success. He and his advisers followed certain dos and don'ts: Use very simple language which even the man in the street can understand; avoid over-blown adjectives and rhetoric; avoid demonisation of your domestic critics; and select a simple catchy expression which will stick to the minds of the people. Reagan had the knack of making his individual domestic interlocutors go away after a meeting with him thinking that he or she was the most trusted confidante of the President.

2. Our Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh is quite the contrast of Reagan---- a good policy-maker, but a bad communicator. His communication skills and those of his advisers are so inadequate and bad that instead of disarming the critics of the Indo-US nuclear deal one by one they have added to their ranks during the last three years. Manmohan Singh's natural inclination to be secretive----arising from his years as a bureaucrat before he entered politics---- has made him seem to his critics as manipulative whereas he is not. Is there a single person in New Delhi whom one can characterise as the most trusted confidante of the Prime Minister? No. Confiding in people, humouring them, making them feel good and sharing secrets with them to tickle their ego do not come naturally to him.

3. Manmohan Singh came to office as Prime Minister a few months before George Bush was re-elected as the President in November,2004.Policy-making during the first term of a US President tends to be affected by his anxiety to get re-elected. They avoid too many innovations. The real innovations in policy-making often come in the second term when this anxiety no longer influences policy-making.

3. One has been seeing this happening in the case of Bush too. Bush 2005-2008 is different from Bush 2001-2004. During his first term, he was surrounded by Cabinet members , who were the relics of the past and looked at India through the eyes of their friends in Pakistan. Gen.Colin Powell, the Secretary of State in the first term, was a good example.

4. During his second term, he has been surrounded by Cabinet members whose vision of India is not unduly influenced by their vision of Pakistan. They look at Pakistan as an intractable problem inherited from the past and India as an opportunity of the future. Ms.Condolleezza Rice, the present Secretary of State, is a good example.

5. The second term of Bush has been marked by two major concerns arising from the growing Chinese military and economic muscle and the growing jihadi power in the tribal areas of Pakistan. In a recent interview, Bush has been quoted as saying that while Iraq and Afghanistan were his major preoccupations, Pakistan would be the major preoccupation of his successor. In fact, Pakistan has already started becoming a major preoccupation of even Bush.

6. It was in this context that Bush, Rice and others of similar thinking started looking at India as a possible geopolitical asset in dealing with not only China, but also Pakistan. Two characteristics of India appealed to them. First, its enduring success as a democracy, which could provide a positive model to other countries in the region. Second, the inability of Al Qaeda and its associates to make an impact on the Indian Muslim community barring some small pockets. In his remarks and speeches during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington DC in July,2005, it was these two aspects which Bush highlighted.

7. It was against this background that Bush's offer of the nuclear deal came during his discussions with Manmohan Singh. The late R.N.Kao, the founding father of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), India's external intelligence agency, used to say that policy leaders and analysts should be able to detect when a door, which had remained firmly shut, shows signs of slightly opening. They should immediately put their leg in to prevent the door from closing again and try to make it open more and more.

8.Manmohan Singh, being an alert analyst and a good policy maker, detected the slight opening of the Indo-US door and put his leg in by accepting the offer of a nuclear deal. Since then, he has been frantically trying to keep the leg in and make the door open more and more, but his critics and detractors have been desperately trying to force him to take his leg out.

9. The nuclear deal has been significant from the geopolitical angle as well as from the angle of India's energy supply security. Instead of explaining both these aspects in a simple language which would carry conviction to people, he and his advisers have been over-playing the energy supply security aspect by flooding the people with statistics which bore them. They are trying to project the deal as a manna from heaven in our quest for energy supply security. It is not. The result: they have added to the prevailing skepticism instead of dissipating it.

10. Even the deal's significance from the point of view of our energy supply security has not been properly explained. The contract with Russia under which two nuclear power stations are presently being constructed by it at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu is the last contract entered into by India before the restrictions imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) on nuclear trade with India came into force. Once the Russians implement this contract. we cannot enter into a fresh contract with any power or company in the world unless the NSG's restrictions against India are removed.

11. Bush's offer of the nuclear deal provided a small window of opportunity to have these restrictions removed thereby enabling new contracts. Manmohan Singh grabbed this opportunity. The merits of this deal have to be examined from the technical as well as political angles before deciding whether it is good or bad for the country.

12.In the technical examination, the questions to be asked are: Will the deal affect our present military nuclear capability and come in the way of our further improving it in future if forced to do so by future geopolitical situations vis-a-vis China and Pakistan? Will it come in the way of our research and development of the fast breeder and thorium-based technologies? Will the deal really strengthen our energy supply security?

13. In finding answers to these questions, one has to go by the professional advice of our serving scientists of today who are in the leadership position in our nuclear community. All of them, without exception, have stated categorically that by and large the deal will be beneficial to India and is necessary in the present context.

14. The negative voices have been coming from some senior and highly distinguished scientists, who occupied leadership positions in the nuclear scientific community during the days of our own cold war with the US, when the bilateral relations were marked by bitterness. The younger generation of our scientists, who make the policies today, have a more open mind to the US and do not allow memories of past bitterness to come in the way of innovative policy initiatives. Should the retired scientists of yesterday try to inhibit innovative re-thinking by making the debate emotional instead of remaining professional? They have every right and even duty to draw attention to what they look upon as pitfalls and traps. Once their comments have been considered by the serving scientists of today and they have come to the conclusion that the deal is worth giving a try, should the retired scientists carry on their dogged opposition and mobilise public and political opinion to prevent the impementation of the deal?

15. Immediately after signing the deal in July,2005, the Prime Minister said:" I told the Chairman of our Atomic Energy Commission. You have the veto power. If you say sign, I will sign it. If you say, don't sign, I won't." After examining the draft, the Chairman of our Atomic Energy Commission advised the Prime Minister to accept it and he did. Since then, the Chairman has been consistent in his support for the deal. His technical judgement and that of his serving colleagues should be accepted without seeking to create doubts about them in the minds of the public.

16. The political aspect of the deal is more complex because many suspect---particularly the leftists--- that the deal is not a stand-alone policy gesture by the US, but has come as part of a strategic relationship package. Many subsequent developments such as the talk of India and the US taking the initiative for a concert of democracies, growing military-military relationship, bilateral and multilateral military exercises etc are seen by the critics as indicating that the deal is as a quid pro quo for India joining as an undeclared ally of the US against China and accepting constraints on its policy-making with regard to countries such as Iran, which are anathema to the US.

17. The over-dramatisation of the malign nature of the Hyde Act in this context is misplaced. True, the Hyde Act seeks to impose a large number of extraneous dos and don'ts on the President in implementing the nuclear deal. In the US, the President is unimaginably powerful in foreign policy matters. How effectively any President adheres to the Hyde Act will depend on the state of over-all Indo-US relations and his own perception of India as a benign or a malign power. If a President continues to attach importance to India and has a favourable perception of India, he can find dozens of ways of circumventing the Act in order not to needle India. If the relations become bad and a future President does not like India, he can with equal ease find dozens of ways of needling India even if there be no Hyde Act.

18. We saw an example of this in the way George Bush, the father of the present President, avoided invoking the Congressionally-enacted Pressler Amendment against Pakistan for a long time. This Amendment called for economic and military sanctions against Pakistan if the President determined that Pakistan had embarked on a military nuclear programme and had acquired a military nuclear capability. Even though the CIA had been repeatedly telling him about Pakistan acquiring a military nuclear capability with Chinese assistance, he refrained from making any declaration against Pakistan and invoking the Amendment so long as the US needed Pakistan for the proxy war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. He invoked it only in 1990 long after the Soviet troops had left.

19. We are right in being concerned about many provisions of the Hyde Act and giving expression to them, but we should not allow these concerns to be over-blown and come in the way of further opening the Indo-US door.

20. Yes, it is a fact that the nuclear deal is not an act of charity by the US in a moment of magnanimity to India.It is part of a strategic package. Our examination of the package should be influenced not by our past memories of our relations with the US, but by our present experience of it and our future expectations ftom it. If we examine objectively, we will have to accept that a strategic partnership with the US can act as a much-needed catalysts in enabling us to catch up with China economically despite our belated start and moderating its military and big-power ambitions.

21. We have many valid grievances against the US---- its double standards on the continued use of terrorism by Pakistan against India and its reluctance to support India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to cite only two examples. While continuing to be articulate on such grievances, we should not let them come in the way of the Indo-US door opening more and more.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India,New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail:seventyone2@gmai.com )
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

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

Post by joshvajohn »

BJP should save its face by neither voting against nor in favour of the deal. If Vajpayee is there as leader he would have had a more future based plans. Advani looks like he is after power and only after it and not in national interest. BJP's real face is being revealed as they will be completely in favour of it if they come to power but now are against it because it is done by UPA or Congress. It is in the interest of nation that this deal should move forward soon regardless of is failure.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

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

Post by Muppalla »

The long last mile

Raj Chengappa
July 10, 2008
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

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

Post by Kakkaji »

Swapan Dasgupta's take, in the dailypioneer.com. Posting in full as the URL is not archived:

What if there is a free vote?
Swapan Dasgupta

The rules and conventions of Indian parliamentary democracy don't permit MPs the luxury of either a free or a conscience vote. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the three-line whip was temporarily shelved and MPs allowed a free vote on the Indo-US nuclear deal next week, what would be the outcome? A free vote, by the way, is different from a conscience vote. Whereas a conscience vote rests on the beliefs and preferences of the individual MP, a free vote blends personal beliefs with political compulsions on the ground.

It is difficult to prophecy the numerical outcome of such an exercise in the Lok Sabha. However, what can be said with certainty is that there will be a significant amount of cross-voting. Most important, the fault lines will be markedly different from what the recent political crisis has thrown up.

By and large the Left MPs will be faithful to the Prakash Karat line because they genuinely believe that any strategic proximity with the US is bad for India. It can also safely be assumed that most MPs who depend on Muslim votes for victory will be inclined to give the thumbs-down because of post-9/11 complications. This is not because Indian Muslims have an aesthetic or "green" objection to nuclear power but because circumstances have conspired to link India's elevation to the lower high table of the nuclear club to President George W Bush's foreign policy. For various reasons, Muslims tend to equate the "war on terror" with a war on Islam.

In the normal course those influenced by the civilisational polarisation would include the bulk of the Samajwadi Party, Lalu Yadav's RJD and, at a pinch, the BSP (though we can never be sure of the impulses that drive Mayawati). It would also include Congress MPs elected from places such as North Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Maharashtra (particularly Mumbai) and the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. The less-than forthright support of External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to the Prime Minister's initiative can be attributed to the community composition of his Jangipur constituency. Had Mukherjee been elected from, say, South Kolkata or Birbhum (his native place), his attitude may have been markedly different.

Of course, the decision of individual Congress MPs would also be shaped by elements of confused ideology. India's nuclear programme was initiated by Jawaharlal Nehru, given a different turn by Indira Gandhi and quietly strengthened by Rajiv Gandhi. All three, including Indira, espoused global disarmament but simultaneously kept India away from unequal treaties that imposed a form of nuclear apartheid. This confused inheritance saw Manmohan Singh, K Natwar Singh and the likes of Mani Shankar Aiyar oppose the Pokhran-II test while pragmatists like R Venkatraman supported it enthusiastically.

Manmohan, in particular, has viewed India's nuclear programme not as a strategic asset but as an instrument of economics. He didn't like Pokhran-II because he felt that sanctions would hurt the economy; he wants the nuke deal because he sees colossal economic opportunities coming India's way after the agreement. The Prime Minister's personal commitment to India's strategic programme is certainly not as pronounced as his faith in the economic spin-offs from the deal. At the same time, it is important to point out that the proposed agreement with the IAEA does not compromise India's strategic interests in any way.

Compared to the Congress' ambivalence on the nuclear question -- a reason why it can swing both ways -- the BJP has been unflinching in its belief that India must be at the heart of the N-weapons club. Atal Bihari Vajpayee made this "core belief" of the BJP into national policy in 1998. Although there was a great deal of subsequent faltering -- the BJP hates to be reminded of the generous distance Jaswant Singh was willing to travel to accommodate the Clinton Administration's non-proliferation concerns -- it is safe to assume that any BJP flexibility is dependant almost exclusively on preserving the sanctity of the strategic programme. The IAEA document suggests that India's N-weapons programme will secure implicit international recognition which is why Advani has been careful to not criticise it. In fact, the BJP's outbursts have been reserved for the Hyde Act and the murky circumstances of India's approach to the IAEA. Advani has stressed the ethical impropriety of the Government approaching IAEA before showing that it still commands a parliamentary majority.

Indeed, on the nuclear deal, the BJP finds itself in the piquant situation of opposing something its core constituency -- unaffected by Muslim angst and shaped by middle class yearnings -- wants. It has become a prisoner of the intemperate positions it took in the early days of the nuke deal.

Like the Akali Dal and Shiv Sena which have endorsed the Deal because that is what their social constituencies want, a free vote would see a majority of BJP MPs voting for it. The dissidents would be the maximalists -- those who want India to shun all global agreements because the future belongs to Thorium. This is the ultimate paradox of the N-deal: A majority in the Congress would rather not have the deal and a majority in the BJP would love to have it, now that the military programme has been assured. Of course, there will be no free vote in Lok Sabha. The trust vote later this month will not centre on the N-deal alone. It will be a vote on the Government's economic record, its internal security lapses and on the collateral benefits that will accrue to those who side with the Government.

It is said that Parliament mirrors the national mood. There are, of course, times when it distorts reality hideously. The three-year kerfuffle over the nuke deal will remain a classic case study of reality evading the truth.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

joshvajohn wrote:BJP should save its face by neither voting against nor in favour of the deal. If Vajpayee is there as leader he would have had a more future based plans. Advani looks like he is after power and only after it and not in national interest. BJP's real face is being revealed as they will be completely in favour of it if they come to power but now are against it because it is done by UPA or Congress. It is in the interest of nation that this deal should move forward soon regardless of is failure.
Your post does not make any sense. All the parties have given their reasons for the support or not for support. I have just talked to senior level BJP executive member (who has discussed the deal in the national level meeting)who said that the party has reasons when the deal can be supported. They have mentioned Hyde/123 agreement change and they have reasons to believe that the deal could be done in favor of Indian requirements.
Last line does not make any sense. Can you elaborate
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

They have mentioned Hyde/123 agreement change and they have reasons to believe that the deal could be done in favor of Indian requirements.

Can you elaborate? They can't even get Mr. Modi a visa, or stop Teesta Whatzit from poisoning the GOTUS against the Indian community in America (sorry.... but a fair indicator of the influence of the BJP on US-India relations and US govt). They are going to get the GOTUS to modify the Hyde Act - and get a new 123 signed, all within ... next 6 years, right? After sweeping the national elections.

We await your explanation with bated breath...
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

narayanan wrote:
They have mentioned Hyde/123 agreement change and they have reasons to believe that the deal could be done in favor of Indian requirements.

Can you elaborate? They can't even get Mr. Modi a visa, or stop Teesta Whatzit from poisoning the GOTUS against the Indian community in America (sorry.... but a fair indicator of the influence of the BJP on US-India relations and US govt). They are going to get the GOTUS to modify the Hyde Act - and get a new 123 signed, all within ... next 6 years, right? After sweeping the national elections.

We await your explanation with bated breath...
I dont have access to their report nor I am privileged enough to get the details. I wish I had the information. You can ask them if you meet them next time.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

joshvajohn wrote:Communis act like Red army's secret agents. They have become senseless not even listening to Jyothi Basu or even veterans in their own party.
BJP/NDA acts as if they against all Indian interests in US and elsewhere - Modi force seems to drive BJP to corners again! When BJP comes back after election I think they will fall at the feet of US new president and will accept whatever is given even with stricter deal than this. NDA is altogether seems not at all sensible in this way. Their leaders will isolate themselves from everyone. None of them seems to understand the importance of the deal in terms of relationship with others. It is not congress that wins but Indians and secondly not US that gains but we gain. It is pathetic on BJP's part.

Even the small parties that have understood this the opposite parties just for coming to power do not understand this issue at all. Also if the government is defeated then any other comes to power they will have to face a greater isolation in the international era. I think it is better to make the government to go forward in this regard, support the nuclear policy and by the end of this year there may be elections and then whoever comes will follow it up rather than pulling this apart at this stage.
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

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

Post by darshan »

I like the idea of printing all deal related documents in plain and simple terms in every Indian language and freely distributing them to Indian public especially Hyde act. There should not be any deal if Indian public does not support it. Oh well then i will be hoping for real democracy instead of current fake one where corruption starts from outside of the home and extends to infinity.

Added later:
I have only one thing to say to supporters of this deal that do not forget to get this deal done UPA would cross all the moral boundaries and corruption employed would be limitless. Any one thinking there wont be any corruption or deal broking to get this deal done either has no knowledge about indian politics or lives in la la land. If nehru had kissed US in 1947 then there would have been lot less headache.
Last edited by darshan on 13 Jul 2008 11:03, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

The Government only has 255 votes for sure. PMK has moved into the uncertain column.

PMK set to play spoilsport?

JMM puts out wishlist

So Uncertain are the following:
. 6 - PMK
. 5 - JMM
. 2 - J&K NC
. 1 - Trinamool Congress
. 1 - MNF
. 1 - AIMIM
. 4 - Independents
..........Mr. Mani Charenamai (Manipur)
..........Mr. Sansuma Khunggur Bwiswmuthiary (Assam, Bodo)
..........Mr. Thupstan Chhewang (J&K, Leh)
..........Mr. Harish Nagpal (UP, Amroha)

. TOTAL UNCERTAIN = 20
yvijay
BRFite
Posts: 331
Joined: 13 Jun 2007 06:47

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

Post by yvijay »

Acharya wrote: I dont have access to their report nor I am privileged enough to get the details. I wish I had the information. You can ask them if you meet them next time.
I don't mean to disrespect you, but you always make these short statements and when asked for proof or explanation you bail out. Most of the gurus here attempt to explain things lucidly with enough material except you. I suppose they too have time restrictions and other factors, but they try to explain as much as possible. On the other hand you provide nothing.

And you seemed to know and meet lot of high ranking people in every possible field. I wanted to say this for long time, but mustered the courage just now. Mods, sorry for the OT. If you deem it unnecessary please delete it. Thanks
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

yvijay wrote:
I don't mean to disrespect you, but you always make these short statements and when asked for proof or explanation you bail out. Most of the gurus here attempt to explain things lucidly with enough material except you. I suppose they too have time restrictions and other factors, but they try to explain as much as possible. On the other hand you provide nothing.
Sorry to offend you but I was replying to N3 and the answer is sufficient for him.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by JE Menon »

Gentlemen, please take personal discussions offline if you wish. No more comments on this thread...
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

narayanan wrote: Can you elaborate? They can't even get Mr. Modi a visa, or stop Teesta Whatzit from poisoning the GOTUS against the Indian community in America (sorry.... but a fair indicator of the influence of the BJP on US-India relations and US govt). They are going to get the GOTUS to modify the Hyde Act - and get a new 123 signed, all within ... next 6 years, right? After sweeping the national elections.

We await your explanation with bated breath...
Either the nuclear deal gets done now or in 7 years time, maybe!

I am also of the opinion, that if NDA forms the next government, there is going to be some problems the next time with US Administration. The Democrats are sometimes bigger morality preachers than the Republicans.

Now Suppose:
L.K.Advani becomes the next PM. He would have successfully contested from his seat in Gandhinagar. For that, he would have taken considerable help from Modi. So Modi is going to insist, that Advani should talk to US, so that he can get his Visa back.
We all know that all countries, except Israel, have their own Muslim constituency to attend to. If we do something with US, we look over our shoulders to see, that it doesn't make our Muslims mad. Well US too, has its Muslim constituency, the Oil Arabs. Wouldn't they have a say in it? Let's suppose, they don't mind. Then there is still the "human rights" lobby. They may protest. US will not budge. India will protest. There is going to be a big drama over the visa, and much media space will be used up in this. The more the issue is focussed on, the less US would be inclined to give in, because the Muslim countries would then pick on the issue, and it will run into the sand.

BJP will become just a one-issue party: the Modi Visa. The atmospherics with the US could move downwards, in which case we can forget the nuclear deal during BJPs time. Because then it all becomes a case of honor for the Sangh Parivar.

So I would suggest to all the those concerned, incl. BJP, let the deal move forward now. It would create the right atmosphere between India and US, and then getting a Visa for Modi will also become easier, because it would lack this drama of "nuclear deal and Modi visa" is a package deal. It will be much easier to get the Modi Visa, when the US is in a "strategic embrace" of India, "strategic embrace" implying only psychology and impressions.

Just my two cents.
Last edited by RajeshA on 13 Jul 2008 12:14, edited 1 time in total.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by JE Menon »

Modi will get his visa, if he wants to go. Don't fall for media reports about this group and that group... There may be some noises, but he will get it if he wants it.
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

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

Post by darshan »

For BJP modi visa is as much as of an issue as indo-soviet relationship for US. Some guy from US would take a cheap shot at India with that and BJP is doing the same thing with visa issue so do not carried away by thinking that it is the only issue that BJP survives for. Take a look at it from your angle that BJP keeps reminding US that just like US, India also has muslim population to be concerned about.

And atmospheric conditions for national interest never move anywhere. IIRC, chinese started a deal in reagan administration and closed it during clinton.
Last edited by darshan on 13 Jul 2008 12:17, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

JE Menon wrote:Modi will get his visa, if he wants to go. Don't fall for media reports about this group and that group... There may be some noises, but he will get it if he wants it.
Well the reports said, that when US officials (I don't remember, whether it was just Mulford, or some visiting dignitaries) met with Advani to talk about the nuclear deal, he kept on asking about the Modi Visa instead.

That would make one believe, that this is a contentious issue.
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

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

Post by darshan »

It is not an contentious issue but something more like some US diplomat keep talking about kashmir.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

darshan wrote:It is not an contentious issue but something more like some US diplomat keep talking about kashmir.
IMHO, it is more than a talking point or a pinprick issue.

US may talk about Kashmir, but we are not giving them any leverage there. Your statement would imply: that India would also keep on harking about the Modi Visa, and the US need not budge. Which is OK, if it is just a talking point.

But I believe, Mr Narendra Modi has some higher ambitions, and the fact that he cannot even get a visa for US must be quite annoying to him. So unlike Kashmir, BJP would like the US to budge on it, which makes it a contentious issue.

However I am digressing here, as this thread is on nuclear matters and has less to do with Modi visa. Sorry!
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

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

Post by joshvajohn »

The deal should move forward quickly in the interest of India regardless of its failure in some fronts for clarifications and possible negotiated and agreed changes both sides. This is certainly possible only after engaging with the agreement not without it. It will become very difficult for any government that comes next if this is not happenning. We will be isolating ourselves from everyone else including our traditional friends. This will be easy for China to make claims not only on Arunachel Pradesh and Sikkim but also on West Bengal and possibly take and give Kashmir to Pakistan and then so on. I do not think the think tank in BJP is serious about this. We need to be friends to everyone. Having this agreement does not mean that we are against China or anyone else. We are a growing country and development faster than others. We need to protect our interests and investments and so on. IF we are weak without proper military and other developed systems we cannot do any development here. Our neighbours can play it around if we are not strong and to be strong we need to buy in the world market from anyone who can supply us not only nuclear energy but also any defense system at all costs. In this market economy we are also interested to protect our democratic values and thus we automatically fall in line with all those who share similar values. In this sense with US we share a bit more common mindset than other countries. I do not think Russians are going to be our enemies. We may share good relationship with them. This is going to be one country to one country relationship. Even US, Russians and EU maintain good relationship among themselves in spite of differences at times.

I do not think some of our political parties and their leaders have become mature enough to understand such a kind maintaining diverse relationship and tactics. This will help in future our nations growth on the one hand and also protect from certain ideological interests that tend to downgrade our country from different corners. To protect our interests and our country does not mean that we are against someone else in our neighbourhood. For this we need new relationship and new strategy worldwide. We have not seen such a growth until recently in our country but we are different now and think differently politically and otherwise.

In this sense this agreement is a historical milestone for our country as it allows us to meet out energy in near future through nuclear resources though this is not a perfect alternative for burning coals and petrols. Also this is not a perfect deal where each country has to operate within its own legal systems and military cooperation. I think we will certainly become close friends of US anyway but I think Russians will also be very friendly which will help us to support US in their international involvement at times nevertheless we have to keep our own distinctive identity as multicultural and pluralistic society where we have to take into account different communities' interests and their concerns as well.
Last edited by joshvajohn on 13 Jul 2008 14:03, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

joshvajohn, Can you tell us from which region are you from. From Gods own country?
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

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

Post by joshvajohn »

Oh dear! I come from Southern Tip of India which falls between God's own Country and God's original Country!!! Speak Bengali, Hindi, Kannada besides two of my own!
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

Post by vsudhir »

'I Am Reluctant To Seek Changes In The N-Deal'

The Outlook ragazine has pulled off a scoop and managed to obtain an allegedly exclusive interview with Barak Obama.
In an exclusive interview, the US presidential hopeful speaks on a range of subjects: the nuclear deal, Mahatma Gandhi, his ability to reconcile Islam with modernity, and how he wouldn't have put all eggs in the Musharraf basket.


Apologies if already posted.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

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

Post by Gerard »

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

IIRC, chinese started a deal in reagan administration and closed it during clinton.
A telling comment. This is what we want to avoid. 7 years of wrangling over what is probably a deal with a useful lifetime of 15 years. Reactors may have a design lifetime of 100years, and take 10 years to build, but the energy and economics scene are changing fast. I don't want India to sit out another global revolution in standards of technology as happened from 1960 to 1997, when the Indian rupee plunged from about 0.5 dollars to 0.02 dollars, even as the dollar itself dropped by about 70% in value.

Look at most Indian towns and villages: we are stuck in the 1930s in terms of infrastructure and conveniences. Shortage of cement, shortage of drinking water, shortage of indoor plumbing, poor garbage disposal, poor sanitation, poor healthcare, dismal emergency services, goat-track "roads", dust kicking up due to poor environmental practices... the excuses for most of these can be traced to the high cost and lack of usable energy. Most of our villages still don't have electric lighting. Literacy hovers at around Pakistan levels.

Sorry for the rant, but I am tired. No energy left to be patient with the "nononono yaar! We don't want any progress, yaar!" types. To save anything of Indian culture and real values, these obstructionists must be swept away into the compost heap of history, whether they wave orange or red or green rags.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Post by Rahul M »

Sorry for the rant, but I am tired. No energy left to be patient with the "nononono yaar! We don't want any progress, yaar!" types. To save anything of Indian culture and real values, these obstructionists must be swept away into the compost heap of history, whether they wave orange or red or green rags.
admirable sentiments ! :wink:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

Look at most Indian towns and villages: we are stuck in the 1930s in terms of infrastructure and conveniences. Shortage of cement, shortage of drinking water, shortage of indoor plumbing, poor garbage disposal, poor sanitation, poor healthcare, dismal emergency services, goat-track "roads", dust kicking up due to poor environmental practices... the excuses for most of these can be traced to the high cost and lack of usable energy. Most of our villages still don't have electric lighting. Literacy hovers at around Pakistan levels.
You have a point about getting this deal through.

But your frustration has existed and will continue to exist. Even with 40 GWe of imported reactors. For some 25-40% of what they generate will be "swept away into the compost heap" - just like today. (That is some $25 Billion+!!)

I recall when IG declared emergency in the 70s. Cement and steel - for construction - literally overnight became available and cheap. India has everything - everything, but the will to do good for each other.

Even today there are pockets of great things, only because as a society or country we are unable to sustain the higher standards on a general level. This deal will not change that.

India bought a great amount of aircrafts and for some odd reason did not realize that it needs infrastructure to go around.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Post by Kanson »

I took a decision not be part of the forum which insults national heroes and distinguished people who dedicated their life for the nation. But i guess i'm making an exception now.
ldev wrote:
Arun_S wrote: Reading the power point presentation of Anil Kakodkar on Slide 6 he states capital cost of building PHWR at 1700$/KWE which he states is better then global average of 2000$/KWE. But that is in right ball park. It is another matter that Kakodkar fails to report the rather substantial capital cost of fuel fabrication (NFC) and Post usage spent fuel rod handing plant, required for that PHWR capital investment to be of any use.

What I found rather surprising was however his next slide where Kakodkar states that cost of making first Prototype FBR I.e. PFBR of 500MWe is a fraction of making PHWR of 700MWe at just Rs 69,840/KWe ($1662/KWe). This IMO is pure magic and walking on water, a smaller capacity more difficult reactor costing less than a larger PHWR. Can anyone help explain the accounting method behind this claim? If this is true then heck why would one build PHWR that cost more to build and require Natural Unraium that India does not have? And why the need for AHWR when PFBR is so cheap?

From what I know FBR's not only cost much more than PHWR (IIRC 2 o 3 time more) but it also needs in parallel a plant to reprocess the spent fuel to sustain its core enrichment. Not to mention a much higher cost of ownership due to high operations and maintenance cost.

http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/2006/cluster2 ... Energy.pdf
Why are you going so far to UC Davis, when their are links available by simple googling from Indian sources which show what the cost of Tarapur units 3&4 and of 540MWe each and the 500MWe FBR is:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2207/ ... 104500.htm
Jain said the initial estimate for both units was around Rs.8,000 crores. This dropped to Rs.6.500 crores and then to Rs.6,000 crores
With a installed capacity of 1080MWe and at an exchange rate of Rs 43 per USD this works out to $1292/KWe.

http://www.meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2005/06/07op02.htm
Work on the 500 MW FBR, costing Rs 3,492 crores, is in full swing at Kalpakkam
With a capacity of 500MWe and the same exchange rate it works out to $1833/KWe. Maybe Mr. Kakodkar believes that if the first PBFR with all the learning involved in it cost $1833/KWe, that subsequent units will come down in price by some amount.

In any event, the FBR will command a premium over the cost of Tarapur 3&4 of 26% over Mr. Kakodkar's figure and 42% over the estimated capital cost of the FBR currently under construction. So to call it cheaper than PHWR is dishonest.

Just because figures are different in the west does not mean that one has to be so derogatory of Indian scientists to call their genuine achievements "walking on water".
Do people compare apples and oranges ? Is it not the general accounting practise to compare figures under similar head ? I'm talking about the "Estimated Cost" here...

Estimated Capital Cost of TAPP 3&4 of capacity 1080 MWe is Rs. 8000 Cr which turns out to be ~ $1700/KWe, the figure quoted by AK in his ppt as Capital Cost of Indian PHWR

Similarly for PFBR, the estimated cost Rs.3492 Cr of capacity 500 MWe turns to be exactly Rs.69840/KWe, the figure quoted by Ak as Capital Cost of PFBR in the ppt slide.

(Thanks Ldev for the data)

As PFBR construction is yet to complete and revised tend to be a variable with many factors i think he has taken the "Estimated Cost" as comparision. Why so much hoopla on this simple one. And, "dishonest" is a very strong word, i hope people will take a relook at the usage.



The data shows PHWR C Cost came down to Rs.6000 Cr from Rs.8000 Cr. Is the same trend can be seen in PFBR?

Some Quotes on...

PHWR cost
He mentioned that while BHEL took 1,679 days to manufacture the first PHWR steam generator, the manufacturing time of the eighth steam generator came down to 258 days, and this was the basis for the cost reduction award given by the Bureau.
PFBR Capital Cost
The cost of construction of the PFBR is Rs 2,800 crore (overnight cost, at February 2002 prices). At 62.8 per cent plant load factor, the unit energy cost for a construction schedule of seven years is estimated at Rs 3.22, with debt-equity ratio of 1:4. Construction delayed by one year will increase the energy cost to Rs 3.3, and by two years to Rs 3.4. Thus, it is seen that the FBR will be, cost-wise, competitive with other energy technologies.But this is the cost or price of the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) PFBR.

....

If the capital cost of a FOAK PFBR is 100, building a replica will bring down the cost to 71.7. The cost comes down with series construction to 64 for a reactor with two plants on one site and 59.2 per reactor with four plants on one site and somewhat stabilising at 57.7 per reactor for 12 plants on three sites.

It is this stabilised cost of FBR that one should be talking about (and not the cost of the FOAK PFBR), when the cost is compared with other mature, stabilised technologies.
So going by this @ 72% the cost of PFBR comes down to $1169/KWe, less than the figure $1292/KWe for PHWR(1080MWe) of Rs.6000 Cr Captial cost.

Ref. Link:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/200 ... 900900.htm

--------

If i say, fiddling with numbers is dangerous than meddling with devils, gents going to deny it.. :)
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

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

Post by John Snow »

Kanson saab, thanks for breaking your promise, It is never good to leave any forum to the anti nationals, please keep up the fight for what you believe in.

All said and done,

'Promises proclaimed and costs projected are seldom kept in near future what to say into distant future'
Sprinster uvacha

Need example

LCA
Kaveri
Arjun
Uranium resource planning, before 123

"they say jove laughs at lovers perjuries" Shakespeare

Remeber Doris day song

"Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera"

From the Man who knew too Much :mrgreen:
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

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

Post by darshan »

Here is another thing I do not get about this deal. It does not certainly seem about civilian reactors because let alone reactors, india cannot even think of faster trains in india due to security issues. Nuke reactors for india would be like ticking time bombs that would be perfect nuke weapons for possible nuke nude pakis and perfect nuke weapons for chinese because they would not have to worry about indian retaliation.

So, does this deal come with a solution for terrorists created by TSP and dragon? Nowadays it seems pretty easy for terrorists to just dial in and get info on indian security forces.
Does this deal say that US would press the trigger to retaliate back if one of the reactor is sabotaged?
I do not expect GoI to retaliate back on its own so that point is not worth considering. GoI would either go for cover up or condemn the attack.

========================
To RajeshA,
Do not sell negotiating space created by ignorant BJP so cheap.
Modi does not have any high ambitions for US visa. It is only a visa not a pass to swarg log. He is not some white wannabe suffering from inferiority complex. He can get anything he wants through his connections in Gujarat. There are many public servants from police officers to politicians that visit US on regular basis to take care of their black money. And btw, Advani was winning in Gandhinagar even before Modi and he can do so at anytime with or without him.
As a person of Indian descent, you can always remind people that while Modi was denied a visa, everybody from China was granted one even after killing tons of Tibetans. Again, there is lot to keep bringing up that issue than just some silly issue.
Also my last post on this issue.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

darshan: IMO one of the strongest reasons to go for international safeguards is to get them in place BEFORE an attack is launched on one of our civilian reactors. I don't know if the safeguards will protect the facilities and their contents, but I think that is at least part of the intent. The military ones, I hope have military security.

US won't launch retaliatory strikes on those who attack Indian reactors, but US may launch a strike on anyone who refuses to accept safeguards and then leaks Pu to the Al Qaeda for use on US cities. Certainly the sentiment will be there to launch those strikes, if there is a WMD attack on a US city. Indian doctrine says that those who supply weapons to that hit India may be subject to massive retaliation - why would US not have similar doctrines? Unlikely that they will sit around saying: "talk-talk" after a city is hit, like Indian NSA said recently. Even right after 9/11, the US commanders are said to have reported instant readiness of the strike forces including the nuclear strike forces, and asked the President for orders. US doctrine is built on "Assured Destruction" as the core of the deterrent.
Last edited by enqyoob on 13 Jul 2008 23:13, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »


CPM speaks what was its unspeakable: we can support BJP-led coalition if...
Dipankar De Sarkar
It’s communal...doesn’t mean all the time BJP did mischief: Biman

http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/334897.html
Bose, in a dhoti in a roomful of men and women in business suits, hinted at a larger,global reason behind the Left’s withdrawal of support to the government over the India-US nuclear deal. “The (popularity) rating of George W Bush in the US has gone down to 28 percent. This has never happened before in history. The lowest used to be 38 percent - now it is 28 percent,” he told his audience. “In that political scenario, the government of India is going to bail out George W. Bush by signing the nuclear agreement,” he said, adding that nuclear energy would account for only eight percent of India’s energy needs.

Asked why the Left had not withdrawn support earlier, Bose replied: “There you might blame the Left parties.”
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

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

Post by Gerard »

Nuke reactors for india would be like ticking time bombs that would be perfect nuke weapons for possible nuke nude pakis and perfect nuke weapons for chinese because they would not have to worry about indian retaliation.
Boss you need to inform the GOI of this important insight. They need to shut down the DAE right away. It seems they've been operating ticking time bums. For decades. Bums for chinibhai and paki terrorists. Look how many bums...

Tarapur Atomic Power Station - 2 BWR reactors, 2 PHWR reactors
Rajasthan Atomic Power Station -6 PHWR reactors
Madras Atomic Power Station - 2 PHWR reactors
Narora Atomic Power Station - 2 PHWR reactors
Kakrapar Atomic Power Station - 2 PHWR reactors
Kaiga Atomic Power Station - 4 PHWR reactors
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant - 2 VVER reactors
Kalpakkam (IGCAR) - FBTR reactor, KAMINI reactor, PFBR reactor
Trombay (BARC) - CIRUS reactor, Dhruva reactor, Apsara reactor
Locked