India-US relations: News and Discussions III

disha · Post by **disha** » 20 Dec 2016 04:26

^ Interesting - wishful thinking of an Aussie with an opinion on Adani mine finding mention in the Indo-US thread to buttress a point on coal !!

Can that post be taken up to energy thread? Or coal thread? The post above is totally orthogonal to the topic here.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 20 Dec 2016 06:08

Hitesh wrote:That is wishful thinking. Coal is on the way out. Coal may provide 1/3 but that was a decrease from 80-90% back in the day. In fact, natural gas has taken the role of coal because it presents a far lower cost than coal and economical considerations make coal an unlikely prospect for investments.

India has huge deposits of coal, no so for Natural Gas, which means we'll have to import and that will drive the cost up. For India, I do not see coal being replaced big time in the near future.

Back to Indo-US relations, what's the status of the nuclear deal between us? I would have thought that with Japan on board, we should see an accelerated move for Westinghouse-Toshiba reactors.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Dec 2016 07:58

Hitesh wrote:
Excuse me? Why don't you quit whining about my rebuttals? If you do not like my posts rebut them but don't ever tell me to shut up or acquisce to your view. I will make my posts as I see fit in response to whatever posts the posters, including you, have made. If you don't like my posts, then don't read it. The post I made was in reference to another post made by another poster and I disputed it.

And I am not spreading my "alt left ideology" or what ever label you find convinient to label in furtherance of your ad hominem attacks. I am expressing my opinion. If you got a problem with that, deal with it.

If you didn't like what I posted, then you should have criticize that other poster for making that comment that prompted my post. No selective criticism here.

You have derailed this thread with constant whining about the US election which is irrelevant to India-US relations, in particular about HRC addressing US coal miners. This invites others to comment unnecessarily which then spins out of control. You must stop now with derailing or post somewhere else. It's most fortunate that I didn't report your posts to the admins.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 20 Dec 2016 08:12

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 20 Dec 2016 08:49

Mort Walker wrote:
Hitesh wrote:
Excuse me? Why don't you quit whining about my rebuttals? If you do not like my posts rebut them but don't ever tell me to shut up or acquisce to your view. I will make my posts as I see fit in response to whatever posts the posters, including you, have made. If you don't like my posts, then don't read it. The post I made was in reference to another post made by another poster and I disputed it.

And I am not spreading my "alt left ideology" or what ever label you find convinient to label in furtherance of your ad hominem attacks. I am expressing my opinion. If you got a problem with that, deal with it.

If you didn't like what I posted, then you should have criticize that other poster for making that comment that prompted my post. No selective criticism here.
You have derailed this thread with constant whining about the US election which is irrelevant to India-US relations, in particular about HRC addressing US coal miners. This invites others to comment unnecessarily which then spins out of control. You must stop now with derailing or post somewhere else. It's most fortunate that I didn't report your posts to the admins.

There is no whining or derailing the thread as per se. You are the one whining and being a child throwing a tantrum because I dare to question your world view, perceptions, and considerationswhich you uphold as the "gospel truth". I find your threats of reporting my posts to be utterly laughable and pitiful as they are the hallmarks of an inferior complex who cannot stand others' criticisms or different viewpoints. What is the point of this forum if we cannot entertain different viewpoints or even tangential debates as one or several issues crop up for debates.

Stop being childish and grow up and learn how to debate.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 20 Dec 2016 08:54

Kashi wrote:
Hitesh wrote:That is wishful thinking. Coal is on the way out. Coal may provide 1/3 but that was a decrease from 80-90% back in the day. In fact, natural gas has taken the role of coal because it presents a far lower cost than coal and economical considerations make coal an unlikely prospect for investments.
India has huge deposits of coal, no so for Natural Gas, which means we'll have to import and that will drive the cost up. For India, I do not see coal being replaced big time in the near future.

For a time, coal was getting expensive for India because of the bottlenecks in the infrastructure. Instead of coal, why don't we use our vast reserves of thorium and leverage them as fuel for our nuclear reactors?

Back to Indo-US relations, what's the status of the nuclear deal between us? I would have thought that with Japan on board, we should see an accelerated move for Westinghouse-Toshiba reactors.

In the nuclear world, things move at a glacial pace due to great risks of liability and given the recent history of nuclear mishaps. Also building nuclear reactors are capital intensive projects, even though they make the most sense over the long run. the problem is that given India's very high interest rates, India can only take on several nuclear reactor projects at a time, not dozens of them at a time. Hence the entry of solar power. Setting up solar power farms are the easiest and least capital intensive projects to undertake. That is why Modi is so enamored with solar power. He feels that India is capable of rising up to the challenges of overcoming solar power's shortcomings and making it as a mainstay of India's energy infrastructure.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2016 09:03

We are all going OT here.

With DT in power, there may not be much pressure from the US on us and others to do this or that in the energy sector. DT may go for increase their oil production and even go for some serious exports. We have a trade surplus with the US at present and one can be sure they want to balance it. So we can import oil from the US to balance the trade and they will be happy. At least we will not be funding Saudis and Iranians directly. Of course, we may end up funding EJs indirectly.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Dec 2016 09:21

Hitesh wrote: There is no whining or derailing the thread as per se. You are the one whining and being a child throwing a tantrum because I dare to question your world view, perceptions, and considerationswhich you uphold as the "gospel truth". I find your threats of reporting my posts to be utterly laughable and pitiful as they are the hallmarks of an inferior complex who cannot stand others' criticisms or different viewpoints. What is the point of this forum if we cannot entertain different viewpoints or even tangential debates as one or several issues crop up for debates.

Stop being childish and grow up and learn how to debate.

I have reported your posts. This is the India-US thread, but you keep bringing up HRC, coal and nuclear power merits. There are other threads for that. Please get a grasp of your senses.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Dec 2016 09:25

Yagnasri wrote:We are all going OT here.

With DT in power, there may not be much pressure from the US on us and others to do this or that in the energy sector. DT may go for increase their oil production and even go for some serious exports. We have a trade surplus with the US at present and one can be sure they want to balance it. So we can import oil from the US to balance the trade and they will be happy. At least we will not be funding Saudis and Iranians directly. Of course, we may end up funding EJs indirectly.

It depends on costs. It may not be oil that India needs, as costs may be high compared to the ME, but LNG can definitely be bought for at competitive rates. I don't see how India buying energy from the US as indirectly funding EJs as these are big multinational companies. If that were the case, then any trade with the US would indirectly fund EJs.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 20 Dec 2016 09:35

Hitesh wrote:For a time, coal was getting expensive for India because of the bottlenecks in the infrastructure. Instead of coal, why don't we use our vast reserves of thorium and leverage them as fuel for our nuclear reactors?

Can you name one commercially operational Thorium nuclear reactor? Plus, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why not carry on with coal until a viable alternative emerges?

Hitesh wrote:In the nuclear world, things move at a glacial pace due to great risks of liability and given the recent history of nuclear mishaps. Also building nuclear reactors are capital intensive projects, even though they make the most sense over the long run.

But didn't you just say that

Hitesh wrote:Instead of coal, why don't we use our vast reserves of thorium and leverage them as fuel for our nuclear reactors?

How and why would setting up a chain of Thorium-based reactors (should they miraculously appear in the near future), be vastly different from the conditions plaguing the "nuclear world"? You also admit that they are capital extensive. So if Coal was becoming expensive, how would it help to replace it with even more expensove set up?

Hitesh wrote:the problem is that given India's very high interest rates, India can only take on several nuclear reactor projects at a time, not dozens of them at a time. Hence the entry of solar power. Setting up solar power farms are the easiest and least capital intensive projects to undertake. That is why Modi is so enamored with solar power. He feels that India is capable of rising up to the challenges of overcoming solar power's shortcomings and making it as a mainstay of India's energy infrastructure.

PM Modi has clearly articulated that India needs the whole basket of options to boost our power generation capacity and distribution infrastructure. This includes, Thermal, Hydroelectric, Nuclear and Renewable. None of them are capable of mitigating our power woes on their own. If anything, our mainstay for the foreseeable future appears to be Coal and Hydroelectric.

Solar power farms for instance require huge tracts of land to install the panels- such tracts are not available everywhere in a densely populated India, unlike many other countries.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 20 Dec 2016 10:04

shyam wrote:

Code: Select all

[img]http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/12/16/20161219_clinton.jpg[/img]

Primary purpose of these type of maps is propaganda ( understandable as Zerohedge is a propaganda website ). They are completely misleading and do not portray the real picture. 80% of the population lives on coast or within 60 miles of the coast. 80% of the population also lives in urban areas. More people live in the democratic blue states than the republican red states. The great plains states have very low population density.

Here is a real population density map:
http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art ... ted-States

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Dec 2016 10:22

^^^Why is it that this thread has become the incarnation of the "Understanding the US" thread that was closed by the admins?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Dec 2016 14:23

Here is another fact about the recent US election. This link has a collection of news and you need to scroll down. The portion that I am quoting below is date 7th Dec 2016.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essenti ... story.html
California's ballots have all been counted — more than 14.6 million and most of them for Hillary Clinton

California elections officials completed their work tallying votes from the Nov. 8 election on Wednesday, submitting a final report of more than 14.6 million ballots cast in races from president to seats in Congress and the state Legislature.

Hillary Clinton, whose presidential bid came up short in the electoral college, handily beat President-elect Donald Trump in California by more than 4.2 million votes — almost double the number of ballots cast for Trump, helping boost her lead in the national popular vote.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla must certify the presidential vote by the end of this week and fully certify the election results next week.

Another way to read this bit of news is that Hillary popular vote win is primarily because of California. Trump won the popular vote IF California's tally was excluded.

BUT California is a reality as much as Electoral college is a reality.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Dec 2016 14:41

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/us/po ... .html?_r=0
Electoral College Settles Donald Trump’s Victory, but Little Else {The headline itself is so political}

“We had the Russians and the F.B.I., and she couldn’t prevail against that, but she did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes,” Mr. Clinton said, his determined smile belying his fury.

<snip>

Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, said the election “wasn’t a squeaker.”

“The professional political left is attempting to foment a permanent opposition that is corrosive to our constitutional democracy and ignores what just happened in this election,” she said. Liberals cannot, she added, “wave magic pixie dust and make this go away.”

As for whether Mr. Trump would now begin to offer a hand of friendship to his critics, Ms. Conway noted that he had met with multiple Democrats and spoken with President Obama “several times.” “He said, ‘I’ll be president of all people,’ but the left is trying to delegitimize his election,” she said. “They’re trying to deny him what he just earned. So why is the burden always on him?”

Democrats vow that burden will only increase.

“There’s not going to be a grace period this time because everybody on our side thinks he’s illegitimate and poses a massive threat,” said Adam Jentleson, a top aide to the retiring Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and minority leader, who next year is going to work for one of the hubs of the opposition, the Center for American Progress.

Trumpet becomes *illegitimate* even when he played and won by the rule. Granted he is a Narcissist, has been obnoxious and liable to screw up US domestic/foreign policy. No one denies the right of mango/politico to oppose but this is pure BS. The so called *liberals* are the most illiberals.

But resolve will also confront a reality: Republicans control both chambers of Congress and are in sync with Mr. Trump on many issues. Democrats can make the cabinet confirmation process uncomfortable for Mr. Trump’s nominees, but their chances to actually block anyone rest with the so far unlikely prospect of Republican defections.

While the left of American politics often lacks cohesion, leaders of many groups say this time will be different. The Center for American Progress and some groups directed by David Brock, a liberal strategist, are gearing up for the fight; the Democracy Alliance, a progressive umbrella group, is preparing for a March donor summit to focus entirely on how to regain power in state capitals. And a number of left-leaning activists are planning protests in conjunction with Mr. Trump’s inauguration next month.

There is nothing permanent in politics. There is a reasonable chance that Trumpet/Republicans will over-reach during the first 2 years given their overwhelming control at all levels and that will start the pendulum swinging back.

OTOH, the demography is destiny, at least the way it is understood now as long-term favorable to the Democrats, may not play out the way most folks think. Republicans, just by co-opting the Latinos, can turn that calculation on its head. After all politics is the art of possible.

That is to say nothing is permanent and things are liable to change more often than folks expect and in unexpected ways. This is especially the case when the pendulum is at the extreme as it is right now.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2016 16:12

No one can predict what happen in future. In respect of demography today's young college educated people who are more likely vote Dems may not vote for them when Dems destroy their livelihood with all kinds of regulations taxes and green policies.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2016 16:46

DT statement

“Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamic terrorists continuously slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad,”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ttacks-wa/

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2016 17:24

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rgeting-c/

I still do not understand the reason for the Obomber to do this rubbish.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 20 Dec 2016 18:08

Yagnasri wrote:DT statement

“Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamic terrorists continuously slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad,”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ttacks-wa/

A paisa vasooli statement from President Trump .
May he keep on making such direct statements targeting the hypocrisy in calling Islam as religion of peace.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Dec 2016 19:19

Paisa vasooli if you are a Christian and identify as one. As a Hindu I get no paisa vasooli from any statement Trump makes.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 20 Dec 2016 19:50

^
Let me paste my post from the polling thread here.

Lilo wrote:The reason why i voted for Trump:
His statements on Global Islamic Terror , ISIS , NATO etc represent a level of frankness unprecedented in American foreign policy. If elected President, his campaign time positions on these issues(ex: the shift from "Terror has no religion" to "Terror has a religion") will gain mainstream legitimacy in rest of the non-islamic world including India - as can be expected of statements attributable to a serving American President.

The PIF(pro India forces) will see their public space expanding as they utilize Trump's victory & cite american example to keep rallying more & more Indians against the globalist LeftLiberal-Islamofascist nexus hitherto having a strangle hold on India.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7272&p=2068085&hilit=trump#p2068085

RD ji please to also spot any further discrepancies in above .

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 20 Dec 2016 20:14

The rona-dhona and teeth-gritting and moustache-twirling are reminescent, not of India in 2014, but Gujarat in 2000 - Dec. 2002. Ppl blatantly holding meetings to consider how to overthrow a lawfully elected government. Such meetings were held all over the US. Evil 6th coujin thrice removed, takes credit for getting such a meeting planned on a campus, bounced to off-campus restaurant (where it was effectively destroyed in a most bissful manner by kind ppl who showed up the ignorance of the yaks attending, and deep-sixed the whole enterprse. Small victory: all over the US, far larger meetings were held, some with blatant ties to funding from Pee All See and Bakistan.
Now these similar types in the US, perhaps with help from Oiropean commies, are coming out of the woodwork to destabilize the US.

Remember the Godhra attack? IMO it was planned and executed not by Bissfool rabble, but by a well-planned commie terrorist gang. There is enough "qui bono" as well as "hu knew?" evidence pointing this way to make it about 95% certain.

I wonder what is coming in the Yoo Ess. Hope Ankara event is not a practice run, like the IA hijacking of Dec. 1999 and throat-slitting of Rupin Katyal, was a practice run for 9/11/2001.

I wonder if anyone has seen the irony in US commie pinkos complaining about Russians conducting covert operations in the US to benefit right-wing McCarthy tribes - who in turn staunchly defend the Russians!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Dec 2016 20:51

Lilo ji,

I am simply saddened that some of us still seek the validation of gora politicians to legitimize a belief that Indians already know, from the dawn of our modern history, to be the truth.

I don't get it, personally. What difference does it make if a POTUS openly criticizes Islam or not? Do we not already know what Islam is and is capable of? Why does that perception have to be refracted through a gora Presidential mouthpiece for us to accept it as the truth? If we need such a refraction to validate our own beliefs... how is that not a sign of being fundamentally, perennially colonized?

And if the next POTUS goes back to saying "Islam is a religion of peace"/"Terror has no religion" then are we SDREs suddenly going to start doubting our own convictions all over again? Do "Pro India Forces" (in your terminology) have to rely on the whims and fancies of the White House to create a public space within India for an unapologetically Indian point of view?

I hope you recognize how these purely cosmetic approaches are of even less value than, e.g. praying for rain vs. building dams and irrigation canals.

It is perhaps even sadder how some people believe that the willingness of a POTUS to say "radical Islamic terrorism" signals the dawning of some profoundly great gyan that Washington DC did not have access to before. Or worse yet, expect such pronouncements to indicate an actual evolution of US policy in a direction that might benefit India.

Not saying that you personally take any of the positions I have described above. But celebrations of Trump are certainly more appropriate for those Indians who are actually short-sighted enough to do so.

All that has happened is: a known enemy has been prevented from winning the US Presidential election... and an unknown entity (with history as our guide we must presume, unknown enemy) has won instead.

Many people thought America would really change, as much as it claimed to have changed, in the wake of 9/11. It never did then, and it won't now.

JMT.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 20 Dec 2016 21:03

Dipanker wrote: Primary purpose of these type of maps is propaganda ( understandable as Zerohedge is a propaganda website ).

Zerohedge is far from propaganda websites. Everyone from Stan Druckenmiler to Raoul Pal to Grant Williams to Narayana Kocherlakota to James Rickards etc. who are whos who of the investing world, quote ZH regularly which means they read it.

ZeroHedge gives a reasonable opinion about financial matters which Bloomberg, CNBC should be doing. But the MSM gives a biased view.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 20 Dec 2016 22:13

Rishi Verma wrote:Trump is Too Crazy to be President

In June, Atlantic published a psychologist's findings that Trump suffered from "narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity".

That's the same as what was said about Steve Jobs. That he was way too narcissistic, disagreeable and ''grandiose''...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Dec 2016 22:23

All we know by now where everyone stands. I repeat this is not the Understanding US thread which I had shut down. Will reopen tomorrow. So hold it for a day.

ramana

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Dec 2016 22:35

Book review: India-US Relations in the Age of Uncertainty

A long-time America watcher recasts the conventional narrative of Indo-U.S. relations

As the slugfest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton subsides following the U.S. Presidential election, serious debates may now begin on the future of Indo-U.S. relations that have defined the transformation of India’s foreign policy over last two decades

Aptly titled Indo-U.S. Relations in an Age of Uncertainty, the book by long-time America-watcher B.M. Jain outlines various triggers of this transformation. What sets him apart is his attempt at problematising the conventional state-centric narratives of international relations. He applies the ‘complex interdependence’ model of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, who explain patterns of change in inter-state relations by highlighting multiple channels of contact among societies; the lack of a clear hierarchy of issues, and the irrelevance of military force, which provides a far more appropriate frame to understandchanging India-US equations.

Guided by the geopolitics of the Cold War, the U.S. had quickly co-opted Pakistan into its military alliances, and fostered its ‘military parity’ with India, triggering an arms race and pushing India closer to the Soviet Union. There were however several positive interludes, starting from the setting up of the CIRUS nuclear research reactor in Trombay in 1954. This was followed by President Eisenhower’s visit to India in 1959 and General Electric building India’s first nuclear power plant in Tarapur during Kennedy years. But Indira Gandhi’s defiance of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosion aggravated relations during the Johnson and Nixon years.

It was due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, coinciding with India’s drift from the socialist development model that India became the lynchpin in America’s global war on terrorism, a process that was accelerated by the September 11, 2001 attacks. The author, however, credits the ‘flowering’ Indo-US relations to the bold initiatives of George W. Bush. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice arrived in New Delhi in March 2005 leading to the signing of the New Framework for the U.S.-India Defence Relationship followed by a joint statement byManmohan Singh and Bush in July establishing their ‘global partnership’. Bush visited New Delhi in March 2006 and the two sides agreed on India’s Nuclear Separation Plan making way for the Henry J. Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act signed by Bush on December 18, 2006.

Coming a full circle in 2007, the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk took part in joint military exercises with India’s INS Viraat in the Bay of Bengal. This was the same Kitty Hawk that the U.S. had dispatched in 1971 to the Bay of Bengal to demonstrate America’s friendship with Pakistan. This opened doors for a ‘waiver’ by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the eventual signing of the Indo-U.S. Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.

From here their initial enthusiasm begins to taper-off.As regards India, the major stumbling block has come to be India’s Nuclear Liability Act of 2010 that allows operators to have legal recourse to the suppliers, provided Indian courts are of the opinion that the “nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services.” .

Meanwhile, as nuclear cooperation has failed to show results, much is believed to have happened in defence cooperation. U.S. defence sales have risen to $14 billion from just $200 million in 2001. However, the author sees ‘slow moving’ and ‘cautious’ bureaucracy on both sides delaying the U.S. in replacing Russia as the largest supplier of India’s defence equipment.

Jain explains this lack of identical worldviews is due to asymmetrical power structures and socio-cultural differences and hopes they will be able to focus on shared values and interests.

India-US Relations in the Age of Uncertainty; B.M. Jain, Routledge, price not mentioned.

Swaran Singh is professor for diplomacy and disarmament at School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 20 Dec 2016 22:36

Yagnasri wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rgeting-c/

I still do not understand the reason for the Obomber to do this rubbish.

he has also pardoned a record number of crooks and criminals.

seems desperate to get into the history books and not into the dustbin of history where he rightfully belongs, along with the likes of MMS

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Dec 2016 11:43

Trump to Face Imploding Economy in 2017 - David Stockman's Predictions

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 21 Dec 2016 13:24

Mort Walker wrote:
Hitesh wrote: There is no whining or derailing the thread as per se. You are the one whining and being a child throwing a tantrum because I dare to question your world view, perceptions, and considerationswhich you uphold as the "gospel truth". I find your threats of reporting my posts to be utterly laughable and pitiful as they are the hallmarks of an inferior complex who cannot stand others' criticisms or different viewpoints. What is the point of this forum if we cannot entertain different viewpoints or even tangential debates as one or several issues crop up for debates.

Stop being childish and grow up and learn how to debate.
I have reported your posts. This is the India-US thread, but you keep bringing up HRC, coal and nuclear power merits. There are other threads for that. Please get a grasp of your senses.

I have also reported your posts too because you are clearly engaging in trolling, trying to silence an opposing viewpoint even though you have consistently ignored other posters who went off tangents and made posts that were pro-trump but clearly belonged in the Understanding US thread and only focused on my posts (probably because I dare to buck the trend of being pro-trump), and trying to self moderate (or shall I say self censoring) the thread to the point where only pro trump posts are allowed and really derailing the thread.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 21 Dec 2016 13:44

Kashi wrote:
Hitesh wrote:For a time, coal was getting expensive for India because of the bottlenecks in the infrastructure. Instead of coal, why don't we use our vast reserves of thorium and leverage them as fuel for our nuclear reactors?
Can you name one commercially operational Thorium nuclear reactor? Plus, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why not carry on with coal until a viable alternative emerges?

There is no commercially operational thorium because India has not made a strong push for thorium based plants despite her vast reserves of thorium and many opinion of nuclear scientists that thorium reserves should be leveraged. India simply have not made the necessary investments that would make thorium nuclear power plants a viable option.

Hitesh wrote:In the nuclear world, things move at a glacial pace due to great risks of liability and given the recent history of nuclear mishaps. Also building nuclear reactors are capital intensive projects, even though they make the most sense over the long run.
But didn't you just say that

Hitesh wrote:Instead of coal, why don't we use our vast reserves of thorium and leverage them as fuel for our nuclear reactors?
How and why would setting up a chain of Thorium-based reactors (should they miraculously appear in the near future), be vastly different from the conditions plaguing the "nuclear world"? You also admit that they are capital extensive. So if Coal was becoming expensive, how would it help to replace it with even more expensove set up?

Because the costs of using coal is more cost prohibitive over the long run. I was pointing out how Modi is trying to reconcile the cons of both technologies by using a different technology - solar. Solar provides for clean energy while forgoing the true costs of using coal (air pollution and associated health costs and the cost of cleanup to maintain clean water etc.) to a much lesser extent while at the same time, not as capital intensive as nuclear option (if India had the will and foresight, they could have gone for the nuclear option on a much bigger scale)

Hitesh wrote:the problem is that given India's very high interest rates, India can only take on several nuclear reactor projects at a time, not dozens of them at a time. Hence the entry of solar power. Setting up solar power farms are the easiest and least capital intensive projects to undertake. That is why Modi is so enamored with solar power. He feels that India is capable of rising up to the challenges of overcoming solar power's shortcomings and making it as a mainstay of India's energy infrastructure.
PM Modi has clearly articulated that India needs the whole basket of options to boost our power generation capacity and distribution infrastructure. This includes, Thermal, Hydroelectric, Nuclear and Renewable. None of them are capable of mitigating our power woes on their own. If anything, our mainstay for the foreseeable future appears to be Coal and Hydroelectric.

I disagree with the assertion that we must build more coal powered plants to increase our power capacity. I believe that we have the answer in renewables and battery technologies. We just need the will to build and use a systematic approach of using renewables and battery/energy storage technology because if we can do on a grand scale, we will be among the first to corner and master this technology and become leaders in this technology and be able to export the technology to other countries. Why do we have to be the ones who say, "this is not proven technology until somebody else proves it. Only then we should copy and use it for our use" It may be easy to say that well that is an economical way of doing things;i.e., we avoid much risk and have somebody take the risks for us. I say that is very shortsighted of us. We need to be bold and daring. As there 's a saying, "Fortune favors the bold" Look at the US and see how they remain no 1 in many fields and technologies. You may argue that they have a lot of resources. That may be true but they also had a lot of disadvantages. They negated those by being bold and being the first to develop and master a lot of technologies.

If we keep building more coal power plants even though we know the true costs of using those power plants and there are good alternatives before us, I feel that it makes our nation less bold in trying new technologies and mastering them to the point where we can become dominant leaders.

Solar power farms for instance require huge tracts of land to install the panels- such tracts are not available everywhere in a densely populated India, unlike many other countries.

That is not true. We have the Thar desert and it doesn't necessarily have to be huge tracts of land but creative use of the existing lands we have to get the solar power we need.

I am not saying that we have to use only solar power. We can use wind (I favor offshore wind farms), nuclear (I favor thorium bases because we can be independent of other countries providing uranium and holding us hostage to their anti nuclear weapon agendas), hydro (I am not a fan of huge dams anymore. I view them as the capital inefficient power plant and give diminishing returns), natural gas/CNG/LNG (even though they are fossil fuel, they are much cleaner than the coal reserves we have which is of the dirty kind), geothermal, or tide plants. But for coal, I am firmly of the opinion that we need to seriously move away from coal as a viable technology since they carry the most costs over the long term. I do not believe sacrificing long term goals just for the sake of short term goals.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Dec 2016 09:23

Flynn improperly shared intel with Pak ISI.
Three cheers for Trump, no?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/21/mik ... tan-afpak/

The incoming national security advisor allegedly shared classified intel with Pakistan’s notoriously compromised security services. What does that mean for Trump's "AfPak" policy?

“Former U.S. officials said that Flynn had disclosed sensitive information to Pakistan in late 2009 or early 2010 about secret U.S. intelligence capabilities being used to monitor the Haqqani network, an insurgent group accused of repeated attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan.”

This allegation, if true, is far more concerning than the more recent one, given the links known to exist between the Haqqani network and Pakistani intelligence. In 2011, Mike Mullin, then the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the Haqqani network as a “veritable arm” of Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s main intelligence agency.

Several months after Flynn’s alleged disclosures to Pakistan about the Haqqani network, U.S. military officials blamed the group for an attack in Kabul that killed two American soldiers and a colonel.

Gen. Mattis was a vocal supporter of Pakistan when he headed Central Command between 2010 and 2013: He lavished praise on the Pakistani military in several congressional hearings.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Dec 2016 10:30

We need to relook into our relationship with the US now. In all probability, the US policies will be towards balancing trade and creation of jobs in the US. We have a trade surplus with the US, and also a large number of people are employed by our services sector on for the US jobs. It would be better if we look into all these relationships and be prepared for coming administration so that we can deal with them more effectively and in a way that will protect our national interests.

arun · Post by **arun** » 22 Dec 2016 14:35

India might be facing the prospect of having to tackle a Robin Raphael on steroids in the form of Lt. Gen Michael T. Flynn (Retd).

Michael Kugelman points out that Lt. Gen. Michael T Flynn (Retd), the US National Security Adviser Designate in the incoming Trump Administration, fed the Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Military of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan secret intelligence information:

Mike Flynn’s Pakistan Problem ; The incoming national security advisor allegedly shared classified intel with Pakistan’s notoriously compromised security services. What does that mean for Trump's "AfPak" policy?

The citied Washington Post article was titled “Trump’s national security adviser shared secrets without permission, files show” and is datelined December 14. The bitthat deals with the Islamic Republic is as follows:

Former U.S. officials said that Flynn had disclosed sensitive information to Pakistan in late 2009 or early 2010 about secret U.S. intelligence capabilities being used to monitor the Haqqani network, an insurgent group accused of repeated attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Flynn exposed the capabilities during meetings with Pakistani officials in Islamabad. The former U.S. intelligence official said a CIA officer who accompanied Flynn reported the disclosures to CIA headquarters, which then relayed the complaint to the Defense Department. Flynn was verbally reprimanded by the Pentagon’s top intelligence official at the time, James R. Clapper Jr.

Clapper subsequently became director of national intelligence and endorsed Flynn to become his successor as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 2014, however, Clapper forced Flynn out of that job over concerns with his temperament and management.

The newly disclosed Army documents state that the 2010 investigation was ordered by the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Although the records do not say exactly when the case was opened, the commander at the time would have been Marine Gen. James Mattis.

Mattis took charge at Central Command’s headquarters in Tampa, Fla., in August 2010. One month later, Flynn was ordered back to Washington from Afghanistan. He was assigned to a temporary job at the Pentagon as the special assistant to the Army’s chief of intelligence while the investigation unfolded, records show.

Mattis was nominated this month by Trump to serve as secretary of defense. In that role, Mattis will work closely with Flynn; the retired generals are expected to be the most influential voices on national security in the Trump administration.

The Army documents that summarize the investigation into Flynn do not specify which countries he was accused of improperly sharing secrets with.

From here:

Trump’s national security adviser shared secrets without permission, files show

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2016 15:49

India might be facing the prospect of having to tackle a Robin Raphael on steroids in the form of Lt. Gen Michael T. Flynn (Retd).

He is not anti India, unlike Robin.

Flynn, IIRC, leaked (which he did) to convince the opponents that the US had certain capabilities that they should be convinced about. Not sure, but it may have backfired. Mattis was involved in that incident.

There has never been concern, within the US Services, about Flynn's capabilities. It is his management style - which fits well into Trump's style - that has been of great concern. Flynn is a registered Democrat.

However, Flynn especially, and Mattis to a lesser extent, are rabid anti Islam. They should (my expectation) help India with the terrorism issue. And, I do not think the US will leave a vacuum behind in A'Stan.

Let us see.

also a large number of people are employed by our services sector on for the US jobs. It would be better if we look into all these relationships and be prepared for coming administration so that we can deal with them more effectively and in a way that will protect our national interests.

The service part has already started declining. Would have taken a beating irrespective of what the policies are in US. That rebalance is already in the works. Has to be to survive.

India has produced programmers and people to manage then, by the boat load. Not many in leading edge sphere and these Indians are mainly in the US. India needs to challenge the likes of Google and Microsoft. Else it will mostly be a reactive situation - not really worth it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Dec 2016 15:57

Well Peter Navarro is in.

Should be very interesting WRT China. And, perhaps, it's implications on India too.

Trump is predictably unpredictable. Looks good for India so far IMHO.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Dec 2016 16:07

We need to have our trade policies tuned in now. We have a good minister in Ms N.Sitaraman for this. Who will be new US Ambassador to India? Any news on that. I saw on twitter the Hindus for Trump leader's girl might be appointed for that post.

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 22 Dec 2016 16:11

Mods : Apologies if this is the wrong Thread.

Trump Should Read India’s Playbook for Taunting China

New Delhi has been poking at Beijing's One-China Policy for years without wrecking the relationship

JEFF M. SMITH DECEMBER 20, 2016

Donald Trump’s decision to break protocol and become the first president-elect in decades to speak by phone with a Taiwanese president was either a colossal blunder or a shrewd strategic coup, depending on which Beltway insider you ask. At the least, Trump’s divisive exchange with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has sparked a substantive debate about the nature of U.S.-China-Taiwan relations and the sanctity of Beijing’s version of the “One-China” policy, which codifies China’s inalienable sovereignty over Taiwan and Tibet.

Yet, as Washington braces for potential blowback from Beijing, both critics and supporters of the Trump-Tsai exchange have overlooked one key fact. In an era when global powers are shunning both Taiwanese and Tibetan leaders (like the Dalai Lama) under the weight of Chinese pressure, one country has been openly challenging Beijing’s One-China policy for more than six years: India.

Like many of China’s neighbors, in the late 2000s India was still adjusting to the more assertive and nationalistic brand of Chinese foreign policy that emerged in 2008, when Beijing’s leaders interpreted the global financial crisis as symbolic of a great power shift from a declining West to an ascendant China. Bilateral ties were repeatedly tested by friction over Chinese incursions into India across their disputed border, Beijing’s efforts to block U.N. sanctions on Pakistan-based terrorists, and visits by the Indian prime minister and the Dalai Lama to the state of Arunachal Pradesh, most of which is claimed by China as “South Tibet,” among others.

One Chinese provocation cut deeper than the rest. In 2010, Beijing denied a visa to Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal on account of his posting as the head of India’s military command in Kashmir, the long-disputed territory claimed by China’s “all-weather friend” Pakistan. China had been employing consular chicanery with India for years — stapling separate, unique visas to Indian residents of Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as an informal challenge to Indian sovereignty there — but the denial of a visa to Jaswal struck a nerve.

New Delhi’s reaction was uncharacteristically swift and punitive, suspending all forms of bilateral military ties and joint exercises. When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited New Delhi in December 2010, for the first time India refused to acknowledge the One-China policy in a joint statement with China. Beijing, New Delhi signaled, would have to recognize Indian sovereignty over Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh if it wanted India’s consent on the One-China policy. “The ball is in their court. There is no doubt about that,” explained Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao at the time.

Joint statements in the years to follow continued to omit the One-China policy, a position adopted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he assumed office in 2014. “For India to agree on a one-China policy, China should reaffirm a one-India policy,” External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj declared before Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first trip to New Delhi in September 2014. “When they raised the issue of Tibet and Taiwan with us, we shared their sensitivities.… They should understand and appreciate our sensitivities regarding Arunachal Pradesh.”

China relented on the visa question two years after Wen’s visit, and military ties were restored shortly thereafter. More important, six years after India’s change of heart on One-China policy, it has suffered no discernable political or economic backlash that can be tied to the policy shift.

To be sure, India’s denial of the One-China policy is less emotionally and politically contentious for China than any shift in American posture toward Taiwan. In the context of China-India relations, the One-China policy mostly relates to Tibet and, to a lesser extent, their long-standing border dispute, in which more than 30,000 square miles of Indian territory is still claimed by Beijing.

In 1947, the Republic of India inherited from the British Raj an unsettled border with China and a series of special trading privileges with Tibet, including the right to station escort troops at specified trading posts. Ever since China “peacefully liberated” Tibet in 1950, it has been critical of Indian intentions on the plateau and sensitive to Indian interference there. That anxiety was amplified after the Dalai Lama fled a Chinese crackdown in 1959 and sought refuge in India, later establishing a Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala. After China and India fought a monthlong war across their disputed border in 1962, Chinese leaders argued that the “center of the Sino-Indian conflict” was not the border dispute but a “conflict of interests in Tibet.”

It’s notable, then, that beyond its broad refusal to endorse the One-China policy, New Delhi has given no indication that it plans to walk back its repeated reaffirmations of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet (much less Taiwan). On the other hand, Prime Minister Modi has adopted several initiatives short of that threshold to signal a more defiant posture on Tibet and the border dispute. Early in his tenure, for instance, Modi fast-tracked military and civilian infrastructure upgrades along the disputed Sino-Indian border, where Beijing has enjoyed a large and widening advantage.

More recently, New Delhi granted the Dalai Lama permission to visit Arunachal Pradesh in early 2017, a move that has drawn Chinese ire in the past. Perhaps most surprising, this past October New Delhi granted U.S. Ambassador to India Richard Verma access to the sensitive, Chinese-claimed town of Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, another first. And just last week Indian President Pranab Mukherjee hosted the Dalai Lama at India’s Presidential Palace, blithely dismissing Beijing’s protesting diplomatic note. In a rare move, it even offered to help Mongolia weather trade sanctions recently imposed by Beijing as punishment for Mongolia’s hosting of the Dalai Lama in November. None of this has resulted in any direct punitive response from Beijing.

It’s not just Tibet, either. Since the visa denial incident in 2010, India has witnessed a marked acceleration in its outreach to Taiwan, including hosting several Taiwanese government ministers in 2011; signing new agreements on double taxation avoidance, cultural cooperation, and mutual degree recognition; permitting a former Taiwanese president and vice president transit layovers in 2012 and 2014, respectively; and inviting a former Taiwanese official to address two high-profile international conferences this year. These moves have yet to draw any sharp response from the mainland.

What does India’s approach to the One-China policy tell us about the Trump-Tsai phone call? Namely, that questioning the sanctity of the One-China policy is not necessarily a “death sentence” with Beijing, especially when the challenges are indirect and inexplicit. To date, China’s muted response to the phone call supports that assessment.

To Beijing’s mandarins, Modi represents an unfamiliar commodity: a confident, assertive, nationalist Indian leader with a surplus of political capital. The same is even truer for Trump, who, for China, remains shrouded in a cloak of uncertainty and unpredictability. China’s leadership isn’t nearly as confident that it can predict Trump’s response to each move on the regional chessboard, compared with Barack Obama’s more calculable style, and is naturally inclined to proceed cautiously. After years of testing the “red lines” of its neighbors and Washington as well, Beijing is not nearly as comfortable being on the receiving end.

If the Trump-Tsai exchange was part of a nuanced, calibrated strategy designed to diminish China’s near-monopoly on strategic ambiguity and the initiative it seized during the Obama administration, it could eventually produce a more balanced trilateral relationship between the United States, China, and Taiwan.

If, on the other hand, the Trump-Tsai exchange precedes a more indiscriminately vindictive posture toward China using Taiwan as a pressure point, Trump’s team should be prepared for a wide range of potentially volatile, dangerous, and unpredictable Chinese responses.

As a party to more than a dozen meetings in Beijing and Washington with China’s current Taiwan affairs minister, Zhang Zhijun, and to numerous exchanges on Taiwan with some of China’s senior-most diplomats, I find it difficult to overstate the intensity and seriousness Beijing devotes to Taiwan and its status. It is far more sensitive to changes in America’s posture on One-China policy than India, partly because China has never felt particularly threatened by Indian power, and partly because its leadership has more directly linked its legitimacy to the reunification of Taiwan than to any issue related to Tibet.

That doesn’t mean Washington should compromise its values under threat of Chinese coercion: I believe the U.S. president should reserve the right to speak to whomever he likes and at the time of his choosing, whether that’s Taiwan’s president or the Dalai Lama.

Trump and his team appear to have reclaimed that right and, thus far, to have moved the needle on Taiwan without destabilizing ties with China. But for this to be remembered as a shrewd strategic coup, they will have to walk a fine line in creating a new balance in trilateral relations not only more favorable to U.S. and Taiwanese interests but stable enough to prevent an unnecessary war with China in the Western Pacific.

Cheers

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 22 Dec 2016 17:04

So now liberals are out hunting Trumpet ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... olice-say/
A man accused of killing a UPS driver is convinced he actually shot Donald Trump, police say

A New York man accused of killing a UPS employee is convinced that the person he shot with a rifle this month is President-elect Donald Trump, authorities said.

<snip>

Police said Barkley shot and killed William Schumacher at a Walmart parking lot in Ithaca, N.Y., at about 12:50 a.m. on Dec. 8. Barkley then drove his truck over Schumacher’s body before driving away, according to court records.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 22 Dec 2016 17:47

arun wrote:India might be facing the prospect of having to tackle a Robin Raphael on steroids in the form of Lt. Gen Michael T. Flynn (Retd).

If one reads the whole article his problem is one of *temperament*. Somewhere else I heard/read, perhaps in a Baki channel, that his disclosure regarding the haqqani was in an effort to impress upon the Bakis about the reach of the US spying capabilities.

Quite different from Robin R. Such a person is susceptible to flattery and the rest. He might slip again but that is different from being sympathetic to bakis.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Dec 2016 18:18

This article about General Mattis is from 2010, six years ago.
General Mattis is Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense.
http://thediplomat.com/2010/08/us-cluel ... -pakistan/

Whatever warrior-like qualities that new US Central Command chief Gen. James Mattis may possess, he has no clue about the depth and seriousness of the differences and rivalries that beset relations between India and Pakistan.

Mattis’ ‘solution’ to hostilities between the two, as conveyed to the US Senate Armed Services Committee as part of his confirmation hearing, is to bring Indian and Pakistani army officers together to attend military courses in the US.

‘…I think,’ Mattis said, ‘the most important thing we can do in support of the diplomatic efforts which will fundamentally be how we change something like this, is to help bring the officer corps of both militaries together and create trust between them, allow them to perhaps attend our school together.’

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Mattis also suggested that military leaders from both countries study the American Civil War ‘fought between opposing armies in the then divided America.’

Such suggestions are, at best, corny, and at worst unworkable and very likely unacceptable to India (which sees no role for the military in diplomacy and which doggedly believes in civil supremacy).

In fact, Indian and Pakistani military officers used to jointly attend British courses, but the experience wasn’t good for either side. In part this is because officers from the two militaries come from very different governing cultures, and their positions on Kashmir are also unbridgeable. Military leaders in both countries will therefore reflexively reject such a proposal, which would anyway do more harm than good.

And the allusion to the American Civil War? That won’t be go down well either. Pakistan and India are two sovereign states, and while the US federal government and the Confederate states may have been on opposing sides, they certainly weren’t two countries at war.

Mattis’ idea of India and Pakistan coming together like this is hopelessly naïve and will produce nothing but resentment in both countries.