India nuclear news and discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2008 02:15

Sanjay M wrote:Anybody have a link to C Raja Menon's article? I want to post it up elsewhere.

http://www.indiadefence.com/nucleardeal.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2008 02:29

Adm RM follows BR quite well and knows the ins and outs of the posters.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Sep 2008 02:37

Sorry this constant 24/7 reading is doing tricks with my memory. With less time on hand, can plese someone let me know where Adm RM stands, I know of few bad apples, Adm Ramdas and then another one (gosh my memory is failing me). If as someone suggested he is in the same league as BK then I would want to read him. Anyone please!!
thanks,
fanne

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Sep 2008 02:38

Mortgaging nuclear crown jewels

Brahma Chellaney

The Indian leadership’s nuclear deal-making comes at the cost of deterrent-building. If the deal takes effect, India will become another Pakistan to U.S. policy, locked in a dependent relationship, with its nuclear crown jewels effectively mortgaged.

Whatever happened to India’s vaunted “credible minimal deterrent?” Despite having Asia’s oldest nuclear programme, India still does not have a minimal, let alone credible, deterrent as defined by its own nuclear doctrine. Yet to secure a dubious civil nuclear deal, India is allowing the various good-faith declarations it made on July 18, 2005, to be turned into binding, enforceable international commitments. If this deal takes effect, India can forget about being a strategic peer of China. It will become another Pakistan to U.S. policy, locked in a dependent relationship, with its nuclear crown jewels effectively mortgaged.

The idea to build energy “security” by importing high-priced, foreign fuel-dependent power reactors is an absurdity — a money-spending boondoggle that is sure to rake up kickbacks for some but leave India insecure and buffeted by outside pressures. The deal, in effect, will ensnare India in a wide non-proliferation net and undermine its autonomy to build a full-fledged deterrent. India has already paid a heavy international price for its nuclear programme, but its deterrent capabilities remain nascent, thanks to the tentativeness and pusillanimity of those who have led it over the years. But just when it seemed ready to take off, it is being fastened to oppressive non-proliferation constraints whose sum effect would be, as U.S. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden said earlier, “to limit the size and sophistication of India’s nuclear-weapons programme.”

With India wedged in a unique nuclear crescent stretching from Israel to China, a deal effectively capping its deterrent capability at the present rudimentary level will be a grievous blunder. Yet, as symbolised by his refusal to celebrate the 10th anniversary four months ago of India going overtly nuclear, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh remains fixated on deal-making, instead of deterrent-building. Dr. Singh’s polarising single-mindedness on the ballyhooed deal has injected bitter divisiveness into an issue that centres on the future of India’s nuclear programme. Had Dr. Singh done what he had repeatedly promised — “build the broadest possible national consensus” — India would not have undercut its negotiating leverage. By turning it into a matter of personal prestige and desperately wanting a successful outcome, he has allowed the deal to attract, however inadvertently, additional conditions at every stage of its evolution.

Certain give-and-take is inevitable in any deal. But this deal has picked up such onerous conditions that it now threatens to cast a political albatross around India’s neck. To help build a personal legacy, the deal-making threatens to saddle the country with a damaging legacy. This is execrable, given the unparalleled manner India’s internal and external security has come under serious strain on Dr. Singh’s watch. At a time of growing insecurity, India can ill-afford to narrow its future strategic options. Yet, aided by a hundred spin doctors and an impressionable national media, the deal has been parlayed in larger-than-life dimensions, with its benefits liberally embellished and its fetters cloaked.

India’s constantly shifting goalpost can be seen from the manner it went from demanding a “clean and unconditional” exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group to seeking just a “clean” waiver, and then agreed with the U.S. to one text revision after another in Vienna, rendering the NSG process outcome pretty messy. That is exactly the path it treaded earlier to secure the U.S. legislative waiver (in the form of the conditions-laden Hyde Act), the bilateral 123 Agreement and the safeguards accord. The blunt fact is that the NSG waiver, however cleverly worded, cannot allow India to escape from the U.S.-set conditions by turning to other suppliers, as the publicly released correspondence between the Bush administration and the House Foreign Affairs Committee brings out starkly.

Any material violation of the eclectic non-proliferation commitments India is assuming will trigger a cut-off of cooperation by all supplier-states, leaving its civil power reactors high and dry, yet subject to permanent international inspections. Indeed, the greater the investments it makes in imports-based generating capacity, the greater will be its vulnerability to external penal actions and the constriction of its strategic options. Today, its goal of erecting a credible and survivable nuclear deterrent, as the private intelligence service Stratfor has put it, remains at least a decade away.

The manner a nuclear deal can be employed as a foreign-policy instrument has been underscored by the U.S. action to punish Russia over Georgia by scuppering a key deal with Moscow that was until recently a top Bush priority. That deal would have opened extensive U.S.-Russian nuclear trade, besides allowing Moscow to import, store and possibly reprocess spent fuel from proposed U.S. reactor exports to countries like India. If America can openly invoke a deal as a castigatory instrument against nuclear peer Russia, it certainly would have less hesitation to do so against an India that would become hopelessly dependent on foreign fuel and replacement parts under a patently inequitable deal whose fuel-supply assurances, in Mr. Bush’s own words, are not legally binding but mere “political commitments,” ostensibly to help Dr. Singh save public face. After all, didn’t the U.S. invoke that very instrument against India in response to its 1974 test, impeding deterrent-building and instilling the political timidity that has come to epitomise the Indian state?

The latest deal-making ought to be seen as culmination of the process the U.S. set in motion in 1974 to bring India to heel. It imposes on India obligations that no other nuclear-armed state will countenance. The watertight civil-military separation, for instance, will destroy what the then Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, R. Chidambaram, in 1996 described as “the lateral synergy which exists between the one and the other … You can’t have one without the other.” It also compels India to shut down its main military-production workhorse, the Cirus reactor — the biggest cumulative contributor of weapons-grade plutonium to India’s stockpile, as a recent U.S. Energy Department-funded study by Paul Nelson et al points out. Given that work on a replacement reactor has not begun to date, the Cirus dismantlement in two years’ time will surely result in a significant shortfall in bomb-grade plutonium production.

In addition, the deal seeks to qualitatively and quantitatively crimp deterrent-building through varied non-proliferation fetters. The deal-tied U.S.-legislative and multilateral review processes will subject to the glare of international scrutiny Indian nuclear actions and activities, including any “significant changes,” as the Hyde Act mandates, “in the production by India of nuclear weapons or in the types or amounts of fissile material produced.”

While inhibiting deterrent-building as per the U.S. goal to keep India’s capabilities regionally confined, the deal would help instil Indian security dependency on America. In fact, more than commercial nuclear power, it is U.S. arms exports and closer Indo-U.S. strategic ties that the deal is likely to promote. Before long, Dr. Singh is expected to sign three agreements that U.S. officials are pressing to forge closer bilateral military ties. One is a logistic support accord, another is to provide for end-use monitoring of transferred U.S. weapon systems, and the third is to promote military-communications interoperability.

Since the deal was unveiled, India has agreed to buy systems the U.S. has already sold Pakistan, including maritime reconnaissance aircraft, military transport planes and Harpoon missiles. This raises the question whether New Delhi is seeking to build a first-rate military with strategic reach and an independent nuclear deterrent, or a military that will remain irredeemably dependent on imports and serve as a money-spinning dumping ground for conventional weapons India can do without. A gas leak this year killed an Indian officer and five sailors on board a 1971-vintage amphibious transport ship junked by the U.S. navy and bought by India months earlier.

Such reckless and wasteful arms purchases at the expense of an indigenous deterrent will become more common, if the nuclear deal takes effect. While offering an immensely lucrative opening for outside vendors, the deal will saddle India with a retarded deterrent. India is being effectively tethered to an India-specific NPT, the Hyde Act, with Mr. Bush’s legislative submissions to win congressional ratification labelled the “Hyde Package.” Even the NSG waiver is in harmony with the Hyde Act, mirroring its core conditions. It is still not too late for New Delhi to step back from the precipice of a self-injurious deal and return to the unfinished task of deterrent-building, or else India will remain for the foreseeable future a subcontinental power with global power pretensions.

(Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, is the author, most recently, of Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan.)

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Sep 2008 02:50

"UPA Govt cripples India's missile programme"

PTI | New Delhi
The Daily Pioneer
http://www.dailypioneer.com
2008/09/16
posted in full since site does not archive

Taking the BJP's charge against the UPA Government over India-US civil nuclear deal a step forward, senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh on Tuesday alleged that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has crippled India's missile development programme by committing to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in two letters to US President Bush early last week.

Singh also sought the PM's explanation claiming he owed one to Parliament.

"President Bush has recently informed the US Congress of India's formal commitment to the MTCR. This was done by the (Indian) Ministry of External Affairs in separate letters on September 8 and 9, 2008.

"This, to say the least, is an alarming announcement. When was the decision made by the UPA Government of virtually abandoning the country's decades-old indigenous programme of missile development?" Singh, who is also the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha said here.

"In formally committing in writing its adherence to the MTCR, Manmohan Singh has crippled, forever, the country's missile development programme. This is a step that follows the already revealed crippling of the nation's nuclear programme by this Government," he said in a statement here.

Jaswant claimed that the MTCR made it mandatory upon its adherents to restrict the development of missiles, complete rocket systems, unmanned air vehicles and related technologies and that the regime limits payloads to 500 kg and range to just 300 km.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Sep 2008 03:00

Lament of a columnist

What does a columnist do when his repeated warnings in unambiguous words on an issue of national importance from day one turn out to be true, letter for letter, with none the wiser for it? On the Indo-US nuclear deal, beginning with an article written on July 19, 2005, the day after the joint statement was signed by the US President, Mr George W. Bush, and the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, till this date, this paper had published 20 or more commentaries written by thi s author, each of which had predicted that the deal would run to India’s detriment.

Salient passages

I may be pardoned for quoting the salient passages just to show how the ruling establishment in this country and some analysts who ought to have known better were determined to turn a blind eye to what must have been obvious to anyone knowledgeable about realpolitik:

“…The part of the joint statement referring to (nuclear co-operation) is more in the nature of nebulous promises than firm commitments. (It) cleverly sidesteps any acknowledgement by the US of its obligation to fulfil India’s expectations. The President only agrees to ‘work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realises its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security’… One is unable to shake off the impression that while the President has only agreed to work towards whatever India wants of him, India has explicitly burdened itself with a lot of obligations which may or may not result in commensurate benefit... What might happen in the end is that India’s arms will be twisted to deliver on its commitments, but the US will wriggle out (on some pretext or another).” — July 20, 2005

“There are enough straws in the wind pointing to the so-called nuclear deal turning out to be an albatross round India’s neck…..it was heavily loaded against India which was constrained to give an unresilable undertaking to fulfil several conditionalities circumscribing its future manoeuvrability and flexibility in establishing and managing nuclear facilities and hurting its strategic and security concerns, while the US got away with nebulous verbiage… Is there any guarantee that placing all our cards unreservedly on the table and putting ourselves in such sore straits will eventually let the manna of fuel for our nuclear stations fall from the US and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)? The answer is No.” — January 12, 2006

“…although (the 123 Agreement’s) stated objective is ‘to enable full civil nuclear energy co-operation’, it has short-changed India… It has effectively ruled out transfer of sensitive nuclear technology …as also dual use nuclear related items which have a technical use in both nuclear and non-nuclear applications. This puts paid to any claim of ‘full’ cooperation… On this matter (reliability of fuel supply for reactors and establishment of safeguards against any disruption of supply over their lifetime) of vital importance… the provisions of the Agreement will bog India down in the slough of Never-Never Land…..” — August 7, 2007

Misleading the nation

I had been relentlessly pointing to attempts by the UPA to mislead the nation by claiming that the Hyde Act had no impact on India; on March 6, 2008, after quoting from the Act to show how it mandatorily demands an end to the deal following a nuclear test by India, I had emphasised that it “will subject India to constant pestering for data and information and visits of inspection teams from the US to make sure that the conditions imposed by (the Act) are duly complied with by India in the day-to-day implementation of the Agreement.”

Isn’t it patent now that it is we, and certainly not the US, who have been deceiving ourselves all along? Why foolishly blame the US?

B. S. RAGHAVAN

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Sep 2008 03:48

It seems BJP as a party has been running out of issues and its leaders have become cranky, this one takes the cake

In formally committing in writing its adherence to the MTCR, Manmohan Singh has crippled, forever, the country's missile development programme. This is a step that follows the already revealed crippling of the nation's nuclear programme by this Government," he said in a statement here.

Jaswant claimed that the MTCR made it mandatory upon its adherents to restrict the development of missiles, complete rocket systems, unmanned air vehicles and related technologies and that the regime limits payloads to 500 kg and range to just 300 km.

At times I feel why curse DDM, Jaswant singh's comments make DDM look like newbies.France ,Ger, USA,RU all have ratified the MTCR but then nothing prevents them from developing ICBM's like M-51,Topol-M,Bulava or new varaints of Trident.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Sep 2008 04:15

fanne wrote:Sorry this constant 24/7 reading is doing tricks with my memory. With less time on hand, can plese someone let me know where Adm RM stands, I know of few bad apples, Adm Ramdas and then another one (gosh my memory is failing me). If as someone suggested he is in the same league as BK then I would want to read him. Anyone please!!
thanks,
fanne

If BK is general strategist, Adm RM, is one of the few "true" Indian nuclear strategists. Yes, the crazy ones, who design dooms day strategies

Pick up his book on a nuclear strategy for India, almost a decade old now, came soon after Pok 2. Google for his articles.

His current stand is this deal is "manageable". But, I have not seen anything that squares of his assertions on testing from his book. The best I can guess is, he thinks it is either not a priority or understands the limitations of Indian political will to wield power, in pursuit of national goals and interests.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Sep 2008 04:59

Thanks Shaurya

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 17 Sep 2008 05:09

and then another one (gosh my memory is failing me)

U mean "Golf" Nadkarni?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 17 Sep 2008 06:25

C Raja Menon's article in the last page is very lucidly written and explained. The BJP has indeed acted against national interest, seems like. I'm sorry to hear that simply because we now have no nationalist political parties anymmore, just a motley group of rabble roursers, grousers, gougers, casteists, psecs and regional chauvinists. India deserves better onlee. Perhaps.

/
For a second, me mixed up C Raja Menon with C Raja Mohan onlee.... my bad.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Sep 2008 06:29

In the aftermath of the Gujarat riots, Menon had called for an international tribunal where Modi and other so called rabble rousers could be brought to trial and convicted....my recent post in internal security thread comes to mind here

.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 17 Sep 2008 06:33

my recent post in internal security thread comes to mind here

Which post sir? I looked around, couldn't find the relevant one. Me respects your gyan and insight (incite?) on subcontinental psychohistory (so to say, with Asimov's leave).

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 17 Sep 2008 07:45

x-posted

It's one thing for the Whitehouse to be tactfully discussing their Mexican standoff with Pak Army behind the scenes with Islamabad. But where are those noisy US Congressmen? Shouldn't at least the pro-India ones be loudly hollering about these ridiculous Pakistani actions?

Let me tell you, if this timely Pak belligerence doesn't sell the 123 Deal to the US Congress currently there for them to debate, then nothing will.

If I were the Indian Govt, I would be firmly instructing our 123-lobbyists to raise the issue of the Pak defiance as key evidence that the US needs to cultivate more friendship with India.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Sep 2008 08:02

Can't trust the Americans

In the heat and dust raised by the manner in which India secured a questionable waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Vienna on September 6, many opponents predicted the nuclear deal would mean only what the Americans said it would mean. A former Ambassador of India to Turkey revealed that a Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, a NATO ally of the US, used to say, "Mr Ambassador, you cannot trust Americans on even what they have given in writing."

That pretty much sums up the situation, for there seem to be myriad words and meanings as Americans expound upon the deal. In the process, the India-US nuclear deal has acquired an admirable plasticity hitherto witnessed only in our famed plastic arts (dancing, singing), a kind of Hinduisation its worst critics could hardly have imagined.

Thus it comes as no surprise that Washington has quietly diluted the fuel supply assurances contained in the 123 Agreement in President George W Bush's formal message to the US Congress, which avers that all American commitments to India are not "legally binding". Mr Bush is seeking the Congress's support to rush through the legislation necessary to implement the deal, for which he submitted the text of the 123 Agreement with a covering note and a separate memorandum with seven 'determinations' that India has conformed to non-proliferation commitments made in July 2005.

In the covering note, Indian journalists discovered a 'sting' on the question of fuel assurances, which India has long projected as an essential component of an interlocking set of commitments and obligations undertaken by both sides since 2005. Mr Bush's statement to the Congress made a mockery of mutuality: "In Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India. (The) Agreement does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other US agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement."

This triggered an 'explosion' in the Indian nuclear establishment, where officials struggled to insist that the assurances were intended to be legally binding, though in the absence of an arbitration clause, 'legally binding' has no enforceable meaning. Still, officials persisted with the now obvious lie that the deal cannot be treated like "other US agreements of its type", as only the Indian agreement includes fuel supply assurances. Legally binding fuel assurances were needed because India, which is not obliged to place all reactors under safeguards or withdraw them once placed, unlike other countries with which the US has agreements, was voluntarily accepting IAEA supervision.

These arguments amount to the stirring of spittle. It is evident that the Bush Administration has taken the Indian ruling establishment for a massive ride, and the country will suffer incalculably if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh persists on this ill-fated road. His Government has lost its legitimacy on account of the cash-for-votes scam, he himself has lost the aura of being 'a good man on a hard seat,' and the vocabulary of this contentious deal means completely different things to both sides. The Union Cabinet, Parliament, and the people of India have been denied basic information about what he is colluding with the Americans, and Washington daily denies what New Delhi claims about the nature of the deal.

In these circumstances, Mr Singh would do well to cancel his proposed visit to the US on September 23 to sign the deal. Both regimes are lame ducks, and should ideally leave the matter to the respective administrations that will actually implement it. Moreover, as the Congress has less than one-third seats in the present Lok Sabha, Mr Singh owes the nation an explanation why National Security Adviser MK Narayanan and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee assured Washington that it would get its share of nuclear commerce with India.

Even as Indians ponder why this regime is rushing to complete the deal, Americans are clear that economic manna is coming their way. The Washington Post has urged US lawmakers to hurry with the legislation so that American business houses can rake in the moolah. It specifically warned against French and Russian competition. It would seem that in the post-World War II era, America has not only taken over Britain's role as the leading colonial aggressor, but also its identity as a nation of shopkeepers!

Countries like North Korea, Iran and Pakistan will continue their nuclear journeys. Though Pakistan has been guilty of proliferation (late Benazir Bhutto reportedly told journalist Shyam Bhatia that as Prime Minister she carried the know-how CDs to North Korea), Islamabad received the initial know-how through the magnanimity of the CIA. North Korea has stopped unwinding its nuclear programme, and will doubtless get help from Beijing. Similarly, Moscow has increased its presence in Tehran, and the sharply declining crude oil prices indicate that US aggression on Iran has been averted.

New Delhi has failed to resume talks on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, which was to extend to China, thus eliminating fears of possible Pakistani sabotage. Natural gas can meet our energy needs on an immediate and abiding basis, yet India is neglecting viable energy options for pie-in-the-sky options like the India-US nuclear deal.

India's current power generation is 127 gigawatts (GW), and we need 337 GW by 2016-17 to sustain the current GDP growth rate. Nuclear energy was only 3.9 GW in 2006, and can rise to a maximum of 20 GW by 2016 at prohibitive costs. The large power deficit would still have to be met from indigenous thermal, hydro, gas, wind or solar energy generation.

Contemporary debate has ceased to mention our indigenous thorium-based nuclear programme. Our known thorium reserves can generate 400,000 MW annually for the next four centuries. India alone has the technological expertise for thorium-based reactors and a 300 MW reactor is under regulatory clearance; production can begin in just seven years.

In these circumstances, India urgently needs a constitutional amendment to ensure parliamentary ratification of international treaties as the era of one-party dominance is over and coalition (even minority) Governments are becoming the norm. Yet a ruling coalition with no moral authority is denying Parliament a say on a treaty governed by US laws, which stipulates several conditions binding upon India.

amit · Post by **amit** » 17 Sep 2008 08:16

shetty wrote:No Ordinary Deal
By
Raja Menon

In the grand stand of world politics, the chances of India’s tortoise like victory against China are fancied by all — except the Chinese and the Indian communists. Many may imagine that Chinese prosperity is based on selling millions of plastic Hanumans to India and rubber sandals and bath brushes to Wal Mart. Not so. China’s huge trade surplus comes from manufacturing based on technology purchases unfettered by the 123 clause, utilised to manufacture computers, electronic goods, medical and diagnostic equipment and aerospace parts. In 2001, China imported and paid for 227 hi-tech and dual use licenses which jumped to 7,800 in 2007, while India’s slumped from 574 in 2001 to 356 in the same period. Not surprisingly China’s high-technology industrial output went from 250 billion Yuan in 1999 to 1750 billion Yuan in 2005. Without the 123, agreement and the Hyde Act, no high-tech dual use licenses can come to India without the approval of the US Department of Commerce or the State Department, and no US company gets into this hassle unless the order is worth billions of dollars. China was never hampered by the sanctions imposed on a non-NPT power. The US now wishes to broker India’s release from those constraints. The Indian communists would rather that India remain crippled. {This is a very correct assessment IMHO. I used to think that the communists are just ideologically blinkered. However, having seen Karat in action I'm beginning to think the unthinkable - that there is a section within the communists who have loyalties outside of India's borders.}

Another pointer at the economic aspects of the nuclear deal. It's good see that respected commentators like Admiral Menon are point it out. I can't but remember the kind of ridicule that was reserved here for some posters who tried to make a similar argument one year or so ago. Thankfully things have changed.

The BJP knows all this only too well. They have been in government, have had access to classified analyses and pioneered the country’s overt nuclear capability. But their cynicism has been in view too, that when they were briefed by the government on how India’s strategic capability was being built up, and not compromised by the nuclear deal, they have responded with lengthy newspaper articles on how cheaper electricity could be made from coal, and by joining hands with the communists to oppose a deal which is clearly in the national interest.

A very scathing criticism of the BJP. Unfortunately it can't be said it's unjustified. I wonder what went wrong with the BJP in that they crossed the fine line of being a responsible opposition keeping the UPA govt in check to becoming a political party indistinguishable from the Communists in their opposition to the Nuclear deal.

Sadly even now better sense it yet to prevail. Jaswant Singh's comment on MCTR is pathetic at best. Surely as an ex-Army man he knows what MCTR is about? How does it constrain Indian missile development, unless he's trying to imply that our Agnis are imported maal?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2008 08:22

Paul wrote:In the aftermath of the Gujarat riots, Menon had called for an international tribunal where Modi and other so called rabble rousers could be brought to trial and convicted....my recent post in internal security thread comes to mind here .

I think thats a different one.

What Adm is saying is that India should not be stuck in the chicken and egg paradigm vis a vis the ATV and its vehicles and their payloads. He wants the ATV as is with what they have. That way it like gettng the hen that can lay eggs later.

The rest of the comments are not germane.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 17 Sep 2008 09:45

NDTV - People want to know whether India can conduct Pokharan III, right behind you is the image of the laughing budhha and the banyan tree. Image that you got from the BARC when you recently visited them. Now India really wants to know, you were there as chief of the pokhran II, can India if it wants Pokhran III

APJ Kalam – pokhran II is actually our nuclear scientists, we all worked together OK. And you know, I believe, when you, when you say, when you declare moratorium for nuclear testing what is it mean?

NDTV – That you stop it…..

APJ Kalam – No wait , why do you do that?

NDTV – We probably….

APJ Kalam – ……that means you have built certain capabilities and you can built certain type of nuclear weapons. With that confidence you said that I’ll not do anymore tests. You set, you set a temporary moratorium. So I believe that’s very important, there is an important message that means we have certain capability we can do certain type of systems. Now your question whether we can do further tests

NDTV – Further nuclear tests

APJ Kalam – Yeah, further nuclear test, you see there is always what’s called supreme national interest, when supreme national interest is there – “No Pact” “No treaty” nothing can come in between our nation, that is supreme sovereign national interest, OK? So in that case suppose India decides to go for supreme, that means the international situation made the nation to do a test, it has to do a test. Than the question comes in, now there is the pact that we have, they can see the reason that the international situation forced us to do the test, well the waiver, the pact may withstand or the second is they may withdraw but the national interest is the highest priority.

NDTV – So you still think if there is a need India can withdraw and continue

APJ Kalam – Not withdraw, I am saying India will do the test in the supreme national interest, nobody can stop, No body can stop

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 17 Sep 2008 16:25

France, Russia will ensure uninterrupted fuel supply:Srinivasan

New Delhi, Sept 17 (PTI) A top nuclear scientist today said France and Russia would ensure uninterrupted fuel supply to Indian reactors in the event of America snapping nuclear cooperation.

Former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission M R Srinivasan said the Nuclear Suppliers Group member countries have their own laws and could go by their rules and regulations.

"France and Russia have their own rules. They do not require any such stoppage of supply in that contingency," he told PTI when asked what will be the future of nuclear cooperation with India if it conducts a test.

Srinivasan said American laws allow that country's President to ask India to return all supplied fuel and equipment if New Delhi conducts a test.

"Therefore, there is a distinction between America and others specially France and Russia," he said.

His remarks come in the midst of controversy over US President George W Bush's contention that the fuel supply assurances are "not legally binding" for America.

Srinivasan, currently a member of Atomic Energy Commission, said, legally speaking Indian can conduct a nuclear test and in that eventuality "the US can react".

"But in the case of France and Russia, there is a different situation. They are not automatically stopping," he said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Sep 2008 19:15

The latest Newsweek has a frontpage pic of MMS and the key article on "India Not Shining".A good read about the man who became PM by "accident",but if as appears likely Congress lose,it will be no "accident".It asks why with his "victory" over the N-deal he and his party is so unpopular and gives several answers,not mentioning one key fact that his entire behaviour and duplicity oiver the deal misleading parliament,has l also lost him both much face,respect and a significant % age of votes.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158705

How Singh Blew India’s Moment
The ruling Congress Party failed to capitalize on an unprecedented boom and a sweet nuclear deal.

Excerpt:
"...The disaffection stems from Singh's inability to deliver on promises and bridge India's rich and poor gap. His countrymen long for a leader who can marry the country's vast potential with a bold vision, and make that vision a reality. What they got instead was a caretaker. Thrust into power almost by chance, lacking a clear mandate and constrained by his own party and his allies, Singh has often seemed meek and indecisive. And he's been unable to seize a series of once-in-lifetime opportunities."

By Jeremy Kahn | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 13, 2008

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Sep 2008 22:55

'India can't hold up n-deals with other nations for long'

'India can't hold up n-deals with other nations for long'
New Delhi, IANS:
India is putting subtle diplomatic pressure on the US, telling Washington it was not prepared to put its agreements on nuclear cooperation with other countries on hold indefinitely unless it acts to get early approval by Congress on the bilateral 123 agreement.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is scheduled to meet US President George W. Bush in Washington on September 25. There is a growing optimism in both the capitals that the nuclear deal may be ready for signature when the two leaders meet.

But this can happen only if the agreement that is now before the US Congress gets the final approval through an "up-down" vote in both the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

"Though India has put its agreements with other countries on nuclear cooperation on hold, it cannot be seen as an open-ended wait," official sources told IANS.

"The onus is now squarely on the US to ensure the 123 agreements runs through the US Congress and is ready for signature at the earliest," a source, speaking on condition of anonymity, added.

Technically, India is not prevented from doing business in civil nuclear energy with other countries after the waiver it got from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group in Vienna on Sep 6.

But politically, it has constraints from doing so since Bush has taken the initiative of not only putting in place the 123 agreement, but also in ensuring India got the waiver from the 45-member NSG.

US corporations are also eyeing nuclear business estimated at anything between $40 billion to $100 bn with India now that it has got the waiver from the global nuclear cartel to conduct trade.

However, India has been giving out subtle hints to the US that if the nuclear deal got delayed any further, it will perhaps be the American companies that will lose out in getting into the Indian civil nuclear market.

Manmohan Singh will also visit France when he embarks on his 10-day long journey beginning on September 22.

France, a major player in the field of civil nuclear energy, is keen to enter into nuclear trade with India. The two sides have "initialled" an agreement on civil nuclear cooperation, but are yet to conclude it.

This was done necessarily with a prior agreement with the US government that India's nuclear cooperation deals with France and Russia will be kept on hold till the 123 agreement ran its full course in the US. Since most of the other things are now in place, the proposed agreement needs the final nod from the US Congress.

Manmohan Singh, who begins his 10-day visit on Sep 22, will go to Frankfurt, New York, Washington, Marseilles and Paris before returning to Delhi on Oct 1.

His visit to Washington is only for six hours and he is scheduled to return to New York after his meeting with Bush at the White House, followed by a working dinner on Sep 25.

On Tuesday, French external trade minister Anne Marie Idrac said the NSG waiver has opened the way for signing a bilateral agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and France.

"We hope the cooperation will begin as soon as possible," the minister said.
Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath has said the NSG waiver has opened opportunities for nuclear trade between India and any other country within the parameters of broad NSG guidelines.

"With France having the maximum number of reactors in the world, India would be looking for the best opportunities in any case," Nath said.

awagaman · Post by **awagaman** » 17 Sep 2008 23:34

Why India and not Israel?

From blog of S. Varadarajan
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-why.html

Why India and not Israel? Here's why

'Why India and not Israel?" asks Avner Cohen in today's Ha'aretz:

India's exemption could become a precedent for a new approach to Israel's nuclear question. For the first time, Israel is presented with an opportunity for a new, different nuclear future on both the international and regional levels. Israel is also boycotted, if not treated as a leper, over the nuclear issue, despite the fact that it has demonstrated more caution in relation to nuclear weapons than India. In contrast to New Delhi, Israel has never denigrated the non-proliferation treaty, certainly not in public, despite its refusal to sign it. As opposed to India and the U.S., Israel is a signatory to the treaty banning nuclear testing.
So why not? There are three good reasons why....

1. Unlike India, there is no compelling energy demand-related logic at work here, even in the medium or long-term, which would warrant any relaxation in Israel's status.

2. Unlike India, Israel has been guilty of outbound nuclear weapons proliferation activity on a scale even worse than Pakistan. The Israelis closely worked with the apartheid South African regime on nuclear weapons. Beit-Hallahmi and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms and why (I.B.Tauris, 1988) provides a useful overview of what was known in the public domain at the end of the 1980s. The Nuclear Weapons Archive also has a good account of the Israeli connection in its account of South Africa's nuclear programme. But the U.S. Army's Warner D. Farr has the most damning assessment of the extent of this relationship in a 1999 monograph published by the USAF Counterproliferation Center at Maxwell Air Force Base:

A bright flash in the south Indian Ocean, observed by an American satellite on 22 September 1979, is widely believed to be a South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test. It was, according to some, the third test of a neutron bomb. The first two were hidden in clouds to fool the satellite and the third was an accident—the weather cleared. Experts differ on these possible tests. Several writers report that the scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory believed it to have been a nuclear explosion while a presidential panel decided otherwise. President Carter was just entering the Iran hostage nightmare and may have easily decided not to alter 30 years of looking the other way. The explosion was almost certainly an Israeli bomb, tested at the invitation of the South Africans. It was more advanced than the “gun type” bombs developed by the South Africans. One report claims it was a test of a nuclear artillery shell. A 1997 Israeli newspaper quoted South African deputy foreign minister, Aziz Pahad, as confirming it was an Israeli test with South African logistical support. (to see the footnotes, I suggest you read Farr's article at its original link)
There's also the Federation of American Scientists press release on that 1979 flash detected by the Vela satellite and the eventual confirmation of the Israel-South Africa link. http://www.fas.org/news/safrica/97-087.html

3. Unlike India, any attempt to make an exception for Israel will definitely generate pressure of a break-out from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no country which can credibly cite the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver for India as an excuse to quit the treaty. But if Israel gets to have its nuclear weapons and access civilian nuclear trade, I am willing to bet there would be at least half a dozen regional states which will likely start making noises about quitting the NPT.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Sep 2008 23:37

If India has to pass the US on deals, it will have to break a verbal understanding on sequencing, that the IAEA safeguards agreement will be signed only after the 123 is signed. The 123 does not get signed until, the Congress votes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2008 00:16

What is all this noise about India "waiting" for the US? There seem to be three major players, who can/will supply max of 8 reactors. IF two are "reserved" for the US until they pass the 123, why shoudl India "wait"? RU + FR will get at least 2 each for sure - go ahead and sign those deals (with fuel assurances + ENR).

Sean · Post by **Sean** » 18 Sep 2008 02:27

India should look find a way to but US reactors through the India France bilateral. This way return of equipment and/or cessation of fuel is not an issue in the event of a test.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Sep 2008 03:15

It is not necessarily 123 Agreement, which could be a necklace of boulders around our necks, but the bilateral agreements India may be signing with Canada and Australia.

They would be the ones providing the bulk of uranium to India. If in our bilateral agreements with them, this condition of return of unused fuel upon nuclear testing is allowed to slip in, then our fuel supplies are really threatened.

Canada and Australia may be forced to follow the American model, either because of non-proliferation lobbies at home or even under pressure from the US Administration. Even though the non-proliferation lobbies may be manageable, American diktat may be difficult to oppose.

Manmohan Singh could ask President Bush, as price for signing 123 Agreement in spite of Indian concerns regarding the explanations in the leaked State Dept. letter to Tom Lantos, that the Australians and Canadians be requested by President Bush in private to not press India for such conditionalities, which may not be in Indian interests.

In case Canada and Australia are not willing to give India such an agreement, India should simply wait. The next US Administration may be asked for this favor. A McCain Presidency as such would be in India's interest.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 18 Sep 2008 03:26

Canada seems to be making friendlier noises than Australia is. Rudd is hiding behind the double-standards of the NPT upon which to base his double-standard of refusing to sell uranium to India.

But Canada is a more intimate ally of the US, having crucially helped it in engineering the permanent extension of NPT. Canada would undoubtedly follow the Hyde Act, if the US asked it to.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Sep 2008 03:49

Firms selling n-fuel will guarantee uninterrupted supplies: NPCIL chief

Firms selling n-fuel will guarantee uninterrupted supplies: NPCIL chief
Print Email Feedback Discuss
Rate Article
Rating:
Y P Rajesh Posted: Sep 18, 2008 at 0145 hrs IST
Mumbai, September 17 Even as wires remain crossed between New Delhi and Washington over whether India can be assured of uninterrupted nuclear fuel supplies, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) has said that its contracts with foreign suppliers would make such an assurance legally binding.

“It will be essential for us to have legal contracts where provisions are there of uninterrupted fuel supply for the entire lifetime of the plant,” NPCIL CMD S K Jain told The Indian Express. The foreign supplier will have to commit that the mechanism would work “unhindered, uninterrupted and insulated from any future legislation,” he added.

NPCIL works under the Department of Atomic Energy, spearheading India’s nuclear power programme. The issue ran into controversy after a letter written by President George W. Bush to the U S Congress raised doubts over uninterrupted supplies.

Jain said the first consignment of imported uranium would reach India within two months of the U S Congress approving the 123 Agreement, and the signing of similar agreements with supplier countries like France and Russia. It will, however, be at least a year and a half before the first imported reactor arrives.

NPCIL had begun identifying suppliers soon after India and the U S agreed to the nuclear deal in principle in July 2005, and shortlisted GE and Westinghouse of the U S, Areva of France and Atomstroy Export of Russia. “It should be possible to get uranium within a month to two months of the green signal being given,” Jain said.

However, only one reactor, RAPS-2 in Rajasthan, is eligible to use imported uranium immediately. This is because the separation of India’s civilian and military nuclear plants will be done in phases. RAPS-5 and 6 are next in line to be notified as purely civilian.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Sep 2008 03:57

Nudge to US with Russia nuke deal

Nudge to US with Russia nuke deal
JAYANTH JACOB

New Delhi, Sept. 17: Final touches are being given to a nuclear pact with Russia, which is likely to be inked during the two-day visit of Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov to New Delhi beginning October 20.

The move to put the deal with Russia, and another one with France, on fast track is likely to put pressure on American lawmakers as the US Congress is expected to vote on the 123 Agreement with India this month.

The Russian deal for building four additional nuclear reactors at Kundankulam in Tamil Nadu was ready for signing during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Russia in November 2007. But it was put off as India wanted to clinch the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver before signing the pact.

A memorandum of intent for the four reactors was signed in January 2007 when Russian President Vladimir Putin came to New Delhi. He and Singh had made a joined statement announcing the agreement.

Two of the nuclear power reactors being built by the Russian Atomstroyexport is nearing completion.

In 1988, India and the then Soviet Union had signed an agreement to build a 2,000MW power plant at Kundankulam. A delegation led by Russian minister for atomic energy Ivan Kamenskih visited Kundankulam in June this year.

The US had earlier this month set aside an agreement with Russia for civilian nuclear cooperation to express the Bush administration’s displeasure with Russian military actions in Georgia.

However, Russia’s whole-hearted support for the Indian cause during the crucial negotiations with the NSG for a waiver seems to have given the 2007 deal a push.

France was another country that had backed India with gusto. Prime Minister Singh is expected to sign a nuclear deal with the country when he visits Paris on September 29-30.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 18 Sep 2008 06:01

Philip wrote:The latest Newsweek has a frontpage pic of MMS and the key article on "India Not Shining".A good read about the man who became PM by "accident",but if as appears likely Congress lose,it will be no "accident".It asks why with his "victory" over the N-deal he and his party is so unpopular and gives several answers,not mentioning one key fact that his entire behaviour and duplicity oiver the deal misleading parliament,has l also lost him both much face,respect and a significant % age of votes.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158705

How Singh Blew India’s Moment
The ruling Congress Party failed to capitalize on an unprecedented boom and a sweet nuclear deal.

Excerpt:
"...The disaffection stems from Singh's inability to deliver on promises and bridge India's rich and poor gap. His countrymen long for a leader who can marry the country's vast potential with a bold vision, and make that vision a reality. What they got instead was a caretaker. Thrust into power almost by chance, lacking a clear mandate and constrained by his own party and his allies, Singh has often seemed meek and indecisive. And he's been unable to seize a series of once-in-lifetime opportunities."

By Jeremy Kahn | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 13, 2008

Please do not derail thread by bringing unwanted politics and personal ideology in a techno-strategic discussion. We all know your views very well about PM of India and his party, no need to repeat them endlessly.......

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2008 06:13

A rather revealing article I thought.

India's newfound nuke status may help score over China

17 Sep 2008, 2223 hrs IST, Saibal Dasgupta ,TNN

BEIJING: The next round of border talks between India and China beginning on Thursday promises to be significantly different from the past 11 rounds for a variety of reasons including the recent verdict of the Nuclear Suppliers Group lifting the trade ban on India.

China appears worried that India's bitterness over the role played by China at the NSG meeting will spill over on the border talks. National Security Adviser M K Narayanan, who is the chief negotiator on the border dispute, was one of those who severely criticised Beijing for being reluctant in backing India's nuclear case.

Narayanan arrives on Thursday afternoon for talks with his counterpart, Chinese State Counsellor Dai Bingguo. The talks will be held over several sessions on Thursday and Friday.

"The border talks and the NSG issue are two different things. They must be kept separate," ( ) {Yes, Master}Hu Shisheng, a researcher at the government think-talk, the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said.

Besides the NSG verdict, which put India on a somewhat higher nuclear plane, recent developments in Asia is also expected to influence the next round of talks. China has cause to feel comfortable after its recent success in mending fences with Japan, which it regarded with deep suspicion until a few months back.

India is expected to seek clarification from China on whether it is considering signing a nuclear agreement with Pakistan. There have been reports that the new Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari was pushing Beijing to sign a deal similar to the India-US deal.

China, which has played an important role to helping Pakistan develop its nuclear capabilities, is not expected to give India a categorical reply about its future plans on this count. {Not that we should trust them either way}

"The NSG verdict represents the end of the old order and the emergence of a new order. The Chinese leadership has always adhered to the principal of watching the situation carefully before taking a stand on a changing situation like this one," a Chinese expert on Asian affairs told this reporter. "So, it is no surprise that our representatives behaved in the manner they did. It was a responsible stance on their part, and India should have appreciated it," he said.

The expert also complained that the "sense of hysteria" in the Indian media about China's role at the NSG would have a negative impact on the relationship among the two countries. "The Indian mass media has been very negative on China. Even the reports about incursions by the Chinese military into Indian territory are false and very negative. This is going to be a big hurdle in the relationship between the two countries," he said.

Pakistan, which is always an important factor in India-China relationship, is not yet entirely out of turmoil. The Chinese leadership has little direct acquaintance with the new Pakistani president. The People's Daily , which is the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China, had recently expressed serious concerns about the major challenges facing Zardari in terms of social turmoil and terrorist activities.

Pakistani media had one stage reported that Zardari will visit Beijing on September 17 making it his first foreign destination after taking oath. But this has not turned out to be true. It is possible Zardari initially planned to visit Beijing in mid-September and then deferred it after getting signals that China was not yet ready to discuss a possible nuclear deal.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 18 Sep 2008 07:24

Katare wrote:
Philip wrote:The latest Newsweek has a frontpage pic of MMS and the key article on "India Not Shining".A good read about the man who became PM by "accident",but if as appears likely Congress lose,it will be no "accident".It asks why with his "victory" over the N-deal he and his party is so unpopular and gives several answers,not mentioning one key fact that his entire behaviour and duplicity oiver the deal misleading parliament,has l also lost him both much face,respect and a significant % age of votes.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158705

How Singh Blew India’s Moment
The ruling Congress Party failed to capitalize on an unprecedented boom and a sweet nuclear deal.

Excerpt:
"...The disaffection stems from Singh's inability to deliver on promises and bridge India's rich and poor gap. His countrymen long for a leader who can marry the country's vast potential with a bold vision, and make that vision a reality. What they got instead was a caretaker. Thrust into power almost by chance, lacking a clear mandate and constrained by his own party and his allies, Singh has often seemed meek and indecisive. And he's been unable to seize a series of once-in-lifetime opportunities."

By Jeremy Kahn | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 13, 2008
Please do not derail thread by bringing unwanted politics and personal ideology in a techno-strategic discussion. We all know your views very well about PM of India and his party, no need to repeat them endlessly.......

I also think that most of us here are not naive enough to believe that the INC would have acted very differently from the BJP if the roles had been reversed and it was the BJP who had been offered this exact same deal. The BJP then would have waxed eloquent about the 'historicity' of the deal and the INC would have surpassed CPIM in its shrillness about a 'sellout'. I guess bi-partisan support happens in India only if the 'red-lines' are crossed. That is why it is important that we have informed discussions here rather than toeing political battlelines

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Sep 2008 11:48

" a Chinese expert on Asian affairs told this reporter. "So, it is no surprise that our representatives behaved in the manner they did. It was a responsible stance on their part, and India should have appreciated it," he said.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 18 Sep 2008 11:52

N-deal before September 26, assures Rice

18 Sep 2008, 1128 hrs IST,PTI

WASHINGTON: Ahead of a crucial Congressional hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has told a high-level Indian delegation here that she would be meeting key lawmakers in a bid to secure a quick approval of the agreement before the Congress ends its session on September 26.

Rice briefed visiting MPs led by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi about the steps being taken by the Bush Administration to push the deal through Congress.

The top official is said to have told the delegation that after their meeting she was travelling to Capitol Hill to continue the efforts on the civilian nuclear initiative.

The move assumes significance as Rice is visiting Capitol Hill for a meeting with lawmakers who could play a key role in clearing the deal, just ahead of a major hearing on the issue in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later today.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee has not scheduled a hearing and senior aides in the House have pointed out that while hearings are educational they are not mandatory but purely optional.

Still, there is no word from the Chairman of the House Panel, California Democrat Howard Berman who is a known sceptic of the nuclear deal on non-proliferation grounds.

During the meeting with Ravi, Rice expressed happiness at the present state of the depth and width of the bilateral ties, while the Indian Minister is said to have voiced satisfaction over the "right direction" of relations.

Ravi also expressed his anguish over the terrorist attack on the US embassy complex in Yemen that left at least 16 dead.

Earlier, Ravi emphasised that the civilian nuclear deal has to be seen in terms of energy and the linkages between energy security and food security.

"Energy security is the most important component of development of any country," he maintained.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/N-de ... 497909.cms

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 18 Sep 2008 11:56

Question about the 'dual-use' stuff.

This was before POK-II. We couldn't import a 5GS/s real time oscilloscope. This was for work on a fiber optic transceiver. We had to make do with a CSA. The project suffered heavily, and we had to bow out of that area because we couldn't go beyond the basic OC-3 rate product.

Does the 123 agreement change that state of affairs? My reading is that it will. If so, that makes a quantum shift in the technology business in the country.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Sep 2008 12:19

Dileep wrote:If so, that makes a quantum shift in the technology business in the country.

IMO that's exactly the point highlighted by Admiral Menon saab in his article posted by Shetty ji.

Coming from a "hawk" like him, the benefits (envisaged as everything is still in the air) must be real and tangible.

JMT.

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 18 Sep 2008 13:31

It makes more sense for India to work with France and Russia, our old allies, instead of doing business with US, the trouble maker and unpredictable nation.

France, Russia can continue fuel supplies: Expert

France, Russia will ensure uninterrupted fuel supply:Srinivasan

Achinta Borah
New Delhi, Sept 17 (PTI) A top nuclear scientist today said France and Russia would ensure uninterrupted fuel supply to Indian reactors in the event of America snapping nuclear cooperation.

Former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission M R Srinivasan said the Nuclear Suppliers Group member countries have their own laws and could go by their rules and regulations.

"France and Russia have their own rules. They do not require any such stoppage of supply in that contingency," he told PTI when asked what will be the future of nuclear cooperation with India if it conducts a test.

Srinivasan said American laws allow that country's President to ask India to return all supplied fuel and equipment if New Delhi conducts a test.

"Therefore, there is a distinction between America and others specially France and Russia," he said.

His remarks come in the midst of controversy over US President George W Bush's contention that the fuel supply assurances are "not legally binding" for America.

Srinivasan, currently a member of Atomic Energy Commission, said, legally speaking Indian can conduct a nuclear test and in that eventuality "the US can react".

"But in the case of France and Russia, there is a different situation. They are not automatically stopping," he said. PTI

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Sep 2008 15:11

Dileep wrote:Does the 123 agreement change that state of affairs? My reading is that it will. If so, that makes a quantum shift in the technology business in the country.

Dileep, it is the elimination of the technology denial regime that alone will make this deal worth it.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Sep 2008 16:53

The BJP knows all this only too well. They have been in government, have had access to classified analyses and pioneered the country’s overt nuclear capability. But their cynicism has been in view too, that when they were briefed by the government on how India’s strategic capability was being built up, and not compromised by the nuclear deal, they have responded with lengthy newspaper articles on how cheaper electricity could be made from coal, and by joining hands with the communists to oppose a deal which is clearly in the national interest.

AoA! Now it comes from someone who knows. A fair, balanced, and honest assessment. BTW, the Overseas "Friends" of the BJP put out a "White Paper" to match their "Shoonya Sir" authored by some "nyookulear pissicks peeEchDee" from Penn State U or U. Penn. Claimed that India HAD NO SHORTAGE of electricity, for starters. I had trouble reading the rest because of

but since it was summer I kindly enquired in innocent curiosity if people in India could READ the Gora Kaagaz on the internet given the power cuts in Dilli. Unfortunately this made the Holy Energizer Bunnies very angry with me.

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 18 Sep 2008 16:57

India engaged in illicit nuclear trade: US report
Sensitive drawings depicting the inner workings of a centrifuge, used to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs, were being sold by an Indian government agency for as little as $10 (about Rs 450) in 2006, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

The paper quoted David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, who said he acquired the drawings to prove a point.

"We got them for about $10," Albright told the Post and called the incident a "serious leak of sensitive nuclear information."