Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2008 20:42

CRS, If you think it through the Indian deal requires the taking out of the Iran's potential. And corraling the TSP. Think about it.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 18 Jul 2008 20:45

CRS,

As someone said before, you can save a lot of energy in your posting if you can just cut and paste "India is doomed," "White man sucks," "We have no hope" etc. alternately.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jul 2008 21:00

Both the 123 Agreement and the IAEA draft refer to national laws of each country as operative elements in the deal. This is a critical aspect and needs to be acted upon by India. The Indian government much enact its own laws through Parliament to protect its indigenous nuclear assets, without loss of time. The Act must be retroactive to ensure that no external laws have any influence on national assets or national policies. The Atomic Energy Act needs to be revisited to attend to new developments.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2008 21:05

Rangudu, Why ?

Rkam · Post by **Rkam** » 18 Jul 2008 21:18

http://canadianenergyissues.com/2008/02/19/133/

Home About Canadian Energy Issues Canadian energy issuesthe convergence of environmental and economic policy in Canada and the rest of the world

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
previous post: Backing the winners II: power generation squeeze play in North America

next post: ROK-ing the nuclear world: is Ontario the first stop for new act’s North American tour?

Posted on February 19th, 2008 by Steve Aplin

Nuclear diplomacy: Canada’s role in India’s entry to the Great Power Club
On February 6, I talked about Canada’s position on whether India should be exempted from Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) rules regarding nuclear trade with countries that are outside of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Exemption could mean de facto recognition of India as a nuclear weapons state—in the same league as the U.S., Russia, China, France, and Britain—because India has refused to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections at “strategic”, i.e., military, nuclear sites. It also won’t commit to refrain from weapons testing, and won’t stop producing explosive fuel for bombs.

I mentioned that there were pro and con arguments circulating through the Canadian government. According to Mark Hibbs of Platts, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAIT) supports the exemption and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) opposes it, and DFAIT is getting its way. The issue still requiring diplomatic resolution between Canada and India is India’s use of plutonium from a Canadian reactor to make its first nuclear bomb in 1974.

Canada has been trying to patch this up for a few years now. Our position appears to be to let bygones be bygones when it comes to India, in service of the twin goals of finding a research partner on thorium fuel development and supporting the U.S. effort to strengthen relations with the biggest country on the Asian sub-continent. Here’s what David Malone, Canada’s High Commissioner to India, told a university audience in India on February 12: “[The cool relationship between Canada and India] changed … when both governments … woke up to the fact that allowing [the nuclear] issue to dominate the relationship was a bad idea, and that we could agree to disagree about what happened in 1974 and move on recognizing that India had not proliferated internationally since it created nuclear weapons.” (Note the reference only to 1974, though that wasn’t the only instance of India using Canadian know-how in its weapons program. But this is diplomacy.)

What does “move on” mean? Does it mean agreeing to unconditionally exempt India from NSG export rules, an issue which is being debated right now? Perhaps: it appears that influential NSG countries, including Canada, are cool to the idea of restrictions on exports of enrichment, reprocessing, or heavy water production technology to India. India certainly wants this technology.

This is where it could present a challenge. India wants to base a future generation of reactors on fast breeder technology, and will need plutonium to fuel them; hence its desire for enrichment/reprocessing imports. A breeder program would provide plutonium for enough weapons to allow India to present simultaneous, credible nuclear deterrents to certain of its nuclear neighbors.

But the cardinal rule of the NPT is that no signatory should aid in another country’s weapons program. How could the NSG ensure that no sensitive material goes into India’s weapons? In theory, by subjecting all Indian nuclear installations to permanent international safeguards. If this is not possible, such an exemption could create a hole through which NSG-supplied material could slip into India’s military program.

For the above-mentioned strategic reasons, as well as domestic political ones, India has long refused to allow permanent safeguards at all its facilities. Because of this, the Arms Control Association demanded in a recent open letter that NSG countries not export any enrichment, reprocessing, or heavy water production technology to India. However, as mentioned, Canada appears ready to allow such exports. This might mean that, if we are to avoid entirely abandoning our non-proliferation principles, not to mention forgetting about 1974, we will have to be polite but firm on safeguards.

Is this a show-stopper? India’s position against full permanent safeguards may yet contain some wiggle room. Domestic Indian opposition is strongest in the case of the deal with the U.S., which says that transferred material and equipment is “subject to safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards Agreement between India and the IAEA.” It may not be so vociferous if the other NSG members, such as Russia, were to insist on similar terms.

So proponents of nuclear trade with India are pulling out their best diplomacy. David Malone’s “move on” may therefore be an attempt to convey Canada’s strong desire for a deal while encouraging India to reconsider some aspects of its position on safeguards.

Canadian Energy Issues is written and published by Steve Aplin. Mr. Aplin heads the Energy and Environment practice at The HDP Group, an Ottawa-based management consultancy. He is an expert on the implications of environmental policy for the energy sector. Mr. Aplin also publishes a new power production and emission tracking website, Electric Power Statistics. You can or contact him at 1+(613) 567-5300.

-------------

4 Responses to “Nuclear diplomacy: Canada’s role in India’s entry to the Great Power Club”
djysrv Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Canada isn’t the only country to try to cut a separate deal with India over nuclear fuel and technology. Last month French president Nickolas Sarkozy went to India for this purpose. So like Canada, which wants to sell AECL’s new ACR1000 reactor to India, and France, which wants to sell Areva’s EPR, both countries see opportunities for nuclear exports solely because they are not the U.S.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/01/indi ... zy-on.html

Steve Aplin Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I don’t know if Canada is trying to cut a separate deal, I think we’re trying to settle the 1974 issue and that we’d be satisfied if the terms of the U.S. deal apply to other NSG members.

I wonder if there is any move to put nuclear power back into eligibility under the Clean Development Mechanism. Environment Canada told me no and emphatically no last year, but if we start dealing with India, I wonder if that could change.

randal.leavitt Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Canada could learn a lot from India, especially concerning the use of thorium and breeder reactors. This kind of collaboration could be the key factor that Canada needs to remain a player in the international reactor building industry. So the stakes are high - i.e. Canadian jobs.

Suppose India had not developed nuclear weapons. Does anyone think they would be anything but a bunch of burning cities at this point? Gasp - could it be that nuclear weapons prevent war? What a concept!

We have to turn off the industrial carbon combustion in India. If anyone has a better plan than helping them get nuclear, this is the time to speak up. Anyone? Anyone?

Are there more than ten people in Canada who even know what happened in 1974, and do any of them care any more? I doubt it.

Steve Aplin Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Randal, I’m not sure India would be a pile of smoking rubble if it had not developed atomic weapons. Would China have nuked it? I know China was erratic and aggressive even with the USSR during the 60s, but that was more a product of its insecurity in the face of a more powerful enemy. India’s program was about national pride. You could argue that its 1974 test was the impetus for Pakistan’s own program. Would Bhutto have thrown so much money at the Khans if India hadn’t exploded a bomb?

I know we have to move past this sooner or later, but there have to be conditions. It definitely would be better if India’s power sector were based on nuclear than coal, but why not open up the whole sector. If Iran goes against the NPT, don’t give them a good excuse to do so.

Leave a Reply
Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Recent Posts
Canada-U.S. enrichment negotiation continues as MDS sues AECL, feds
McCain’s balancing act: carbon cap-and-trade versus jobs
British Columbia’s carbon tax lays ground for Kyoto electoral test Part II
Canada walks the international nuclear tightrope to Toyako
McCain’s jab: presidential hopeful touts cap and trade in the fight against climate change
Polls

Should we pay more for electricity?

Yes
No

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian energy issues © Steve Aplin, 2008. Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

[edited by ramana]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2008 21:34

So here is the logic for the shut down of Cirrus reactor. Its part of "move-on". I agree with this as there isnt much coming out of it anyway.

I think an urgent need for India is to do an assessment of their stockpile needs and go all out to fufill it as I see the train coming.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jul 2008 21:34

narayanan wrote:
This IMO is pure magic and walking on water

A shocking statement no doubt, and I have no intention of throwing cold water on what is a fine blaze, but...

It is a little-known fact that days after I joined the eye-eye-tee in the Age of Dinosaurs, my kind and gentle Seniors a.k.a. Saraswati Hostel Taliban, abducted me and demanded that I prove to them that I could walk on water. This was after they demanded that I prove to them that I could
a) climb a tree and catch a crow (a story for another day, that), and
b) light a beedi in a cross-wind of Magnitude 1.3 on the Beaufort scale, given only 3 matchsticks and a matchbox and helped by dire threats.

They gave me one bottle of water and helpfully suggested that the concrete floor of the roller-skating rink would support the weight of the bottle if I placed my feet carefully.

I assure you, I passed the test, and so surely, so must Dr. Kakodkar and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi have done.

If you are true blooded Desi, the test is a cake walk.
The secret is in reward which motivates the Desi to accomplish these minor feats.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jul 2008 21:42

Dileep wrote:Well, if you say so boss!

Its all in the priorities, really.

onlee number 2 is credible but timing is important factor in any negotiations. There are other significant miles to go . Some one ought to take a look at the cost-benefit ratio.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Jul 2008 22:05

Rangudu wrote:CRS,

As someone said before, you can save a lot of energy in your posting if you can just cut and paste "India is doomed," "White man sucks," "We have no hope" etc. alternately.

You are putting words into my mouth. I never said "white man sucks" or "white man is evil". I did say or at least I inferred in no uncertain terms that "white man" will go to any lenghts to protect what he/she sees are their interests. And high on top of that is that us SDREs ought to be de-nuked. And this deal is one way to go about it, and once the stifling inspection regime is on, dominated by Unkil's spies, this will automatically elict resistance from some SDREs which will then make us as 'evil' as Iran and the rest follows. I see that as much more of a plausible scenario than many pro dealers (not necessaruily you) peddling this near-zero probability used car salesman talk initiated by Bush that this deal will make India a 'global super power of the 21st century".

shetty · Post by **shetty** » 18 Jul 2008 22:14

ramana, jagan, arun, from what little I have read, it seems to me that you guys are against the deal, or is my surmise incorrect? I know how Philip and few others feel.

Can we have a poll on this? Also, I still haven't heard any clear issues with the deal that would pop my tubelight to put me against the deal.

Any takers on the anti-deal to summarize it, especially ramana, jagan or arun?

ksmahesh · Post by **ksmahesh** » 18 Jul 2008 22:40

People who are against deal
Arun Shourie, Jaitley, Some Scientists, (now even Great Kalam saab -as per news)

People who favour deal
Kakodkar saab, Some scientists, (earlier Kalam Saab - as per media)

My own feeling after reading of the draft being circulated on net is utter confusion.

My conclusion -> confusion
This is a game. We want weapons, electricity and free foreign policy.

So some clear questions

1. Can we make enough bombs from the remaining reactors to deter chinkis and porkis?
My guess shall be yes.

2. Do we need to test in future?
Well as long as we are sure our current bombs work we have enough deterrent for enemy. If porkis/ chinkis explode then we might follow suit immediately. Unkil can then not ban us alone.......
We may chose not to explode the bombs (I donot like this option personally) because we may have 400% surety that our bombs are working models..

3. Can we get electricity from this deal?
My hunch is minimal..... this is because of the fact that our bureaucratic set up moves at snail pace. (Always trust a dishonest man to show dishonesty - Captain Jack Sparrow)

4. Can we build more military reactors in future?
yes Most certainly

So now my tilt is in favour of deal (only till I find some one of Shourie saying something more substantial)

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Jul 2008 22:41

shetty wrote:ramana, jagan, arun, from what little I have read, it seems to me that you guys are against the deal, or is my surmise incorrect? I know how Philip and few others feel.

Can we have a poll on this? Also, I still haven't heard any clear issues with the deal that would pop my tubelight to put me against the deal.

Any takers on the anti-deal to summarize it, especially ramana, jagan or arun?

Actually I have no opinion on this. i am just doing my beat on this thread as a mod.

I dont know why you got an impression that I am against (or for) the deal?

And we already had a poll a while back.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 18 Jul 2008 22:42

There is no anti deal here, the deal is conditional deal, make it unconditional deal then its done deal.

jash_p · Post by **jash_p** » 18 Jul 2008 23:28

Rangdu quote

CRS,

As someone said before, you can save a lot of energy in your posting if you can just cut and paste "India is doomed," "White man sucks," "We have no hope" etc. alternately

.

Hay, why not cut and paste from "Ummah papers".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2008 23:32

Some more views.

From Rediff.

Uncovering the Indo-US nuclear deal

July 18, 2008

There are several good strategic reasons why India should not sign the 123 Agreement.

The Indo-US nuclear deal is essentially a diluted version of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which India, under both Congress and BJP governments, has refused to sign since the 1970s. Why? Because the NPT is deeply biased in favour of the five original nuclear "proliferators" -- the US, Russia [Images], Britain, France [Images] and China. It unjustly ties the hands of a responsible nuclear power like India which uses nuclear technology to run its civil reactors as well as maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

The Bush administration, recognising that 30 years of coercing different Indian governments on non-proliferation had failed, adopted a new strategy after 2005. The 123 Agreement is the culmination of that strategy. The basic tenet of the Bush anti-proliferation strategy (fully backed by both John McCain [Images] and Barack Obama [Images]) remains unchanged. Usable nuclear weapons must remain the exclusive preserve of the five old proliferators led by the US. That leaves five other countries with nuclear weapons capability: Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. The US has structured a nuanced policy to deal with each.

Israel is a US proxy state and its (undeclared) nuclear arsenal is directly under Washington's control. Pakistan is a US client-state. Control over its nuclear weapons too lies in Washington. North Korea has over the past year been successfully "persuaded" with a combination of coercion and cash to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. That leaves Iran and India. Iran has been threatened with invasion. Sanctions against it have been enhanced. The Islamist state remains unmoved. It is Washington's biggest proliferation worry and could yet be the target of a pre-emptive US-Israeli missile attack.

And India? This country is unique. We are a parliamentary democracy, the world's fourth largest economy, a big financial and consumer market, liberal, secular, English-speaking with Anglo-Saxon laws, judiciary and accounting, a professional bureaucracy and a strong, independent media. Recognising belatedly that India was an "honourable exception" among the five new nuclear states (four of them proxy, fundamentalist or rogue), the US in 2005 crafted a customised nuclear agreement to cap India's nuclear weapons capability.

This is the genesis of the 123 Agreement. The 123 does not explicitly bar India from conducting nuclear tests -- which are vital to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent. But if India does test, consequences follow. The principal consequence? The 123 Agreement will be terminated by the US President.

Immediately following this, the US and the NSG (a cartel created specifically by the US to punish India for its Pokharan nuclear test) will ask India to return the uranium fuel supplied by them for the country's nuclear reactors. That will effectively end India's civil nuclear power programme, despite assurances of India-specific fuel safeguards from the IAEA and the NSG. To get back to an indigenous uranium fuel supply chain will be extremely difficult for India. The Americans are counting on this to make it virtually impossible for any future Indian government to conduct a nuclear test since the consequences are so unpalatable.

The result: an effective abandonment of India's independent minimum credible nuclear deterrent -- the cornerstone of every Indian government's policy for nearly four decades. Meanwhile, the original five nuclear proliferators (the US, Russia, Britain, France and China) have between them over 25,000 nuclear bombs (India has less than 12) and are unwilling to dismantle even a fraction of this arsenal.

The choice is stark. By signing the 123 Agreement, India is effectively giving up it 34-year-old nuclear deterrent at a time when China is enhancing its own nuclear capability. (So is Pakistan; both China and Pakistan are, unsurprisingly, delighted with the 123 Agreement). In return, we will be "allowed" to give Western and Russian civil nuclear infrastructure companies business (from Indian taxpayers' money) worth over $120 billion.

But what about India's energy security? Nuclear power currently accounts for 3.10% of our total energy output. If the 123 Agreement is signed, that figure will crawl up to 6% (around 16,000 mw) by 2020. (Remember: over 25% of India's power output is lost in transmission and distribution). In return for the miniscule accretion of 2.9% to India's total energy output over 12 years, the country will surrender its independent nuclear deterrent.

The Indo-US nuclear deal serves America's and the NSG's non-proliferation interest. It certainly does not serve India's national interest or secure its energy needs as (untruthfully) claimed by the government.

Now consider this:

1. The Additional Protocols governing the "guarantee" of uninterrupted supply of uranium fuel to India's civil nuclear reactors in the event of termination of the 123 Agreement have not yet been revealed. These are certain to be far more invasive and intrusive than the draft IAEA Safeguards agreement.

2. In the preamble of the IAEA Safeguards draft agreement, there is a clause that states: 'An essential basis of India's concurrence to accept Agency safeguards under an India-specific safeguards agreement is the conclusion of international cooperation arrangements creating the necessary conditions for India to obtain access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continuous access to fuel supplies from companies in several nations, as well as support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors.'

In the absence of these 'international cooperation arrangements', the India-specific IAEA Safeguards agreement is itself legally invalid. For members of Parliament to vote on a nuclear deal without the above two crucial documents (the Additional Protocol and international cooperation agreements with key NSG members) is therefore a charade.

In sum: the 123 finally gives the US-led non-proliferation lobby what it has wanted -- but not got -- for 34 years: an India without usable nuclear weapons. In return India gets a trickle of additional nuclear power and invasive inspections in perpetuity of 70% of its civil nuclear reactors (compared to only 1% of China's nuclear reactors under the US-China 123 Agreement). A good bargain? For the original five nuclear proliferators, led by the US, yes. For India, no.

The prime minister has in the past stated categorically that the Indo-US nuclear deal must have a "broad national consensus" to be seen as legitimate. With Parliament split down the middle on the deal, the definition of a broad national consensus is not met.

The honourable course of action in these circumstances is to wait for the newly elected governments in the US and India next year to seek that consensus and only then proceed with the deal.

The author is the biographer of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and Aditya Birla

archan · Post by **archan** » 18 Jul 2008 23:46

ksmahesh wrote:People who are against deal
Arun Shourie, Jaitley, Some Scientists, (now even Great Kalam saab -as per news)

Maheshji, could you please post the link about Kalam saab turning against the deal? thanks.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 19 Jul 2008 00:26

ramana wrote:Rangudu, Why ?

Sorry. I was just getting tired of the constant pessimism and defeatism, that's all. India is not a victim or defenseless baby. We may have some feckless leaders but regardless India has pushed forward and has come a long way.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2008 00:28

Right.But it will lead to others jumping on your trail. Thats where I am coming from.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 19 Jul 2008 00:38

ramana wrote:Some more views.

From Rediff.

Uncovering the Indo-US nuclear deal

July 18, 2008

There are several good strategic reasons why India should not sign the 123 Agreement.

The author is the biographer of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and Aditya Birla

R-man, is the above author who eloquently lays out the rationale for Unkil offering this so called 'deal' also a 'white man' hater? Is he also saying that 'white man' is evil? Why are you so gung ho about the deal despite such arguments?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2008 00:47

CRS, No more right?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 19 Jul 2008 00:50

ramana wrote:CRS, No more right?

OK, without the side-tracking BS, just would like R-man's opinion on that article.

ksmahesh · Post by **ksmahesh** » 19 Jul 2008 00:50

archan wrote:
ksmahesh wrote:People who are against deal
Arun Shourie, Jaitley, Some Scientists, (now even Great Kalam saab -as per news)

Maheshji, could you please post the link about Kalam saab turning against the deal? thanks.

Archanji,
Here it is:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/14ndeal9.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2008 00:58

CRamS wrote:
ramana wrote:CRS, No more right?
OK, without the side-tracking BS, just would like R-man's opinion on that article.

I am sorry you need to take it off line. I dont want anymore continuation of the exchanges here.

Thanks, ramana

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 19 Jul 2008 01:39

This, if true, is silly of BJP. This UPA Govt's term is now less than a year before elections are due in the normal course. If, to topple this Govt. 10 months ahead of its time, they make a deal to give CM-ship of Jharkhand to Shibu Soren, then I think they are making a very bad deal.

what is NOT silly now in Indian politics and the UPA ?? Congress paying 25 crores to one MP is NOT silly ? One SP MP has openly alleged that he was offered this. All small parties are being offered this. The criminals from jails are being bailed out to vote that is NOt silly ? UPA govt is openly encouraging bribary and that is NOT silly ? Is BJP party people are Saints ?

what do you think ? after all they are also politicians. If the UPA govt has guts then let them face parliment, WIN TRUST VOTE and face people in next election and win . who says NO ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2008 01:58

And there will be legitimacy for the deal after this?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 Jul 2008 02:01

ksmahesh wrote:
archan wrote: Maheshji, could you please post the link about Kalam saab turning against the deal? thanks.
Archanji,
Here it is:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/14ndeal9.htm

Very honorable of Ex-president Prof Kalam to correct the wrong. To err is weakness of human nature, to recognize it and have the guts to admit it and fix it, demonstrates strength of character.

As in Hindustani it is said: "Der Aaye, Durust Aaye"

Last time around instead of defending the deal MMS used Kalam's name to shoot from his shoulder.
So will PM ManMohan Singh now issue press report that "Even Prof Kalam opposes this deal"?

The tide is turning.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2008 02:15

Apparently the Left gave 202 page rebuttal of the Left-UPA coordination meetings. Can some one find it?
-
here it is

http://www.cpim.org/nuclear/2008_nuclear-notes.pdf

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2008 02:17

Arun< SP party leaders MSY and AS had said that same thing. It could still be in this very thread. The strange thing is until ks mahesh posted it no one paid attention to it. And its dated July14th ie Monday. No rebuttal/vebuttal.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jul 2008 02:27

By signing the 123 Agreement, India is effectively giving up it 34-year-old nuclear deterrent

Rubbish.

POK2 was in 1998. Ten entire years have passed by without another test. Does this mean that India gave up its deterrent in 1998?

Economic entanglement works both ways. If India tests in say ten years time, how much more painful will it be for supplier countries to sanction India? Far better to tut tut, acknowledge the test has already been carried out and move on.

Can they really take back spent fuel? The US refuses to take back Tarapur spent fuel after India offered to ship it there. Is there a single port facility in the US that can handle spent fuel rods? What would the nearby communities say about this?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jul 2008 02:34

How could the NSG ensure that no sensitive material goes into India’s weapons? In theory, by subjecting all Indian nuclear installations to permanent international safeguards. If this is not possible, such an exemption could create a hole through which NSG-supplied material could slip into India’s military program.

Rubbish.

Inspectors check what goes in and what comes out. They verify what goes into storage.
There is no hole here for diversion and there is no need for diversion. India has enough Uranium to produce far more bombs than it could possibly ever want.

Strategic nuclear weapons have their own economics. While it may be unviable to, say, extract Uranium from seawater for electricity production, doing the same for weapons production may be another matter. What price you you place on a nuclear weapons pit? How much are you willing to spend to create it?

NPA hopes of capping the Indian arsenal will remain fantasy.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jul 2008 02:38

The criminals from jails are being bailed out to vote that is NOt silly ?

Silly is not the word I would use to describe this.
Dishonest and unprincipled, yes. Shameful, yes.

Such actions will delegitimize the deal. It will enable a future government to abrogate it.
A minority government has no business signing such important international treaties that bind the state.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jul 2008 02:49

India briefs IAEA board members, nuclear suppliers on atomic deal

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 19 Jul 2008 02:49

The legitimacy of this deal and whether future governments will seriously consider abroagting it are two different issues.

Given the shady wheeling and dealings, the legitimacy of the government that passes this deal and therefore the deal itself is suspect. However, the most likely future government that does not involve Congress will be a BJP led government. I bet that other than passing an Indian equivalent of a Hyde Act, BJP will NOT mess with this deal. BJP's opposition to this deal is largely a political necessity and not based on substance, unlike the Commies who are bound to their masters to scuttle this deal.

Should this deal go through and the UPA govt survives, I'll bet my salary that the next BJP govt will be glad to move forward with the deal.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 19 Jul 2008 02:53

Technically when an individual is sentenced and is incarcirated, except for human rights all rights under constitution such as voting rights become null and void till tha( individual served the time.
Thefefore the crimal leader in confinement my not vote, Its adifferent ma(ter that all other leaders are known crooks but they have not been indited or incarcirated.

shetty · Post by **shetty** » 19 Jul 2008 02:59

Jagan wrote:
shetty wrote:ramana, jagan, arun, from what little I have read, it seems to me that you guys are against the deal, or is my surmise incorrect? I know how Philip and few others feel.

Can we have a poll on this? Also, I still haven't heard any clear issues with the deal that would pop my tubelight to put me against the deal.

Any takers on the anti-deal to summarize it, especially ramana, jagan or arun?
Actually I have no opinion on this. i am just doing my beat on this thread as a mod.

I dont know why you got an impression that I am against (or for) the deal?

And we already had a poll a while back.

Apologies Jagan, no disrespect meant. I was just interested about some legitimate points for cons on the deal from guys who might be more in tune to this than me. Didn't realize the poll was already done.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jul 2008 03:00

Top Indian scientists attack US nuclear deal

The scientists said the agreement was vague on India's quest to reprocess spent fuel for plutonium for its mushrooming fast breeder reactors.
"There will be a large number of safeguards and additional protocol issues related to this, and all these hurdles will have to be crossed to reach the beginning of reprocessing," the 10-point statement said.

Doesn't India already possess PUREX technology? What stops it from building additional reprocessing plants and using all the spent fuel it has?

The IAEA was not too successful in Brazil when it tried to put up hurdles to the Resende enrichment plant. Brazil put its foot down and screened off the centrifuges. The IAEA inspectors may not enter the screened off area. The NPAs squealed like pigs at the thought of Brazil enriching Uranium. Brazil went ahead and secured its national interests.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Jul 2008 03:01

Rangudu wrote:The legitimacy of this deal and whether future governments will seriously consider abroagting it are two different issues.

Given the shady wheeling and dealings, the legitimacy of the government that passes this deal and therefore the deal itself is suspect. However, the most likely future government that does not involve Congress will be a BJP led government. I bet that other than passing an Indian equivalent of a Hyde Act, BJP will NOT mess with this deal. BJP's opposition to this deal is largely a political necessity and not based on substance, unlike the Commies who are bound to their masters to scuttle this deal.

Should this deal go through and the UPA govt survives, I'll bet my salary that the next BJP govt will be glad to move forward with the deal.

Totally agree. The BJP opposition hasn't been totally consistent. Sometimes Advani and Yashwant Sinha/Arun Shourie speak in differnent voices. Would there have been any adverse impact if UPA agreed to BJP suggestion for domestic hyde act equivalent? Did they anticipate any trouble when the US congress takes up the final ratification if India had passed a domestic law?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 19 Jul 2008 03:25

It has become an ego issue with MMS and Sonia so virulently anti-BJP and too proud to seek their support for larger national interests. Once Advani started opposing the deal, it has become a prestige issue for him and the party to back the deal now.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 19 Jul 2008 03:42

Arun_S wrote:
ksmahesh wrote: Archanji,
Here it is:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/14ndeal9.htm
Very honorable of Ex-president Prof Kalam to correct the wrong. To err is weakness of human nature, to recognize it and have the guts to admit it and fix it, demonstrates strength of character.

As in Hindustani it is said: "Der Aaye, Durust Aaye"

Last time around instead of defending the deal MMS used Kalam's name to shoot from his shoulder.
So will PM ManMohan Singh now issue press report that "Even Prof Kalam opposes this deal"?

The tide is turning.

Not so fast, won't trust a BJP politician so readily. They are mad with the smell of blood and satta/kursi. I'll beleive it when I'll hear it from Kalam ji.

Arun your figures for uranium consumptions and $ figures are fundamentally wrong on several fronts as per my calculations. You just can't through some numbers and than refuse to share the details of calculations and assumptions behind them. You must back them with details or take it back. This has been the BRF rule since forever you must also follow the same.

In my calculation the cost would be several order of magnitude lower than what you have calculated.

Thanks!
Raj

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 19 Jul 2008 03:48

It would be very disconcerting if Kalam were against the deal, but Arun Shourie is not Abdul Kalam-until Kalam speaks for himself to th emedia nothing has changed.

This deal provides India a not so hidden backdoor to enhance its nuclear stockpile. This is de facto evidence of an alliance. Only US/Britain and France/Israel have been known to have had such privilege. USSR/China possibly, but only until Kruschev stopped banging his shoe.

The antideal writers have no more public information yet are happy to count the angels dancing on the head of the proverbial pin. They have to answer Kakodkar's assertion . According to Dr Kakodkar, the projected energy gap in 2050 can be bridged if 40-GWe capacity LWRs (light water reactors) are imported during 2012-20. The spent fuel from these LWRs would be used to launch a series of FBRs (fast breeder reactors), and that would practically wipe out the deficit in 2050.

“In case this import is delayed by a decade, the energy deficit by 2050 would be 178 GWe; and the coal import need would go up to 0.7 billion tonnes — or twice the annual coal needed today.”

If India tests today without 123 do you think the repercussions will be any less than tomorrow with 123? This is a country that tests every 25 years, get real. In ten years, the US will not be in a position to tell India what to do at Pokhran, in 20 years India may be in a position to tell the US what to do with its nuclear weapons. So why not get what is available today, the power equations are in flux.

Very very interesting Canada wants a 'collaborator for thorium research'. In future, in CANDU reactors can use thorium cycling. Thorium can be used in conventional reactors to breed U-233. Once-through thorium fuel cycles in CANDU can achieve near-breeder status and render uranium availability an irrelevant issue.

And finally, nothing must be allowed to interfere in the thorium fuel cycle-which with current technology is predicated on enriched U235-->PU-->U-233 from Th.

Finally, believing that they had mastered all of the individual components of their thorium fuel cycle program, the Indians have set about to build prototypes of commercial reactors that are intended to go into serial production. They have been faithful to Bhabha's vision. They have found a way to highly efficient technology, a technology that is far more efficient in its use of nuclear fuel, than the French/American nuclear system by ingeniously mastering and organizing relatively old nuclear technologies, and leveraging them into a fuel efficient system. By doing so they will achieve EROIE's ( Energy returned on invested energy) many times that achieved by Western fuel/reactor systems. The Indian Thorium fuel cycle system will provide electricity to an enormous country for at least 350 years, from 500,000 tons of fuel. Indian scientists and engineers are on the brink of a significant human accomplishment, the realization of Bhabha vision of bringing nuclear generated electricity to India's vast population. - Charles Barton