India - Nuclear News and Discussion

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 15 Jul 2007 22:09

Am I a stupid or GOI

Unkils declared intention of

CRE of Indian strategic weapons is astated goal.

Arming TSP to teeth in spite of being epicenter of terror

Pumping billions of $$$ (tax paid and narcotics money) to shore up the rgime and country

equivocal preaching of restraint on India in spite of clear agression by TSP

PRC proliferation to TSP and TSP proliferation to Iran and India is threatened to cut off relations with Iran


all of the above is well published

and we go to unkil in good faith to negotiate a treaty and while doing so unkil keeps changing goal posts and we run to spin city... who is getting requent flyer miles here???

and India is supposed o be the birth place of Chanikyan earth e shatter :P

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 15 Jul 2007 22:13

NRao wrote:
George P and Soko are in a self induced nidra. And, as we all know, in sleep we all dream.


They are playing down the nasty stuff in the Hyde act --- this is deliberate obfuscation on their part with an intent to put a positive spin on the Hyde act, because these NPAs would love to see India sign up to J18 without the US changing the sticking points in the Hyde act.

As the wise man said on a TV show "if you don't have a backup, you don't have a plan"....hope India has a backup plan or two at hand.
Last edited by Rye on 15 Jul 2007 22:17, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54170
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2007 22:15

Time is not running out for anyone but lifafas like CRM. Again a lifafa masquerading as an Indian expert.

Also about these Geneva games think about the fact that its 9 years after POKII. Is it possible that GOI did not accumulate adequate materials? Of the 9 years 6 years were under NDA.
I dont know any better and am asking for opinion.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 22:39

"....hope India has a backup plan or two at hand.


Who in India?

Scicom? Per AK they have one.

MMS? Do not think so. He seems to be wedded to the dream and US is his back up too.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 15 Jul 2007 22:40

relevance : Politicking
[quote] Isn't the PM in the loop?

  • He was, as he disarmingly admits, not aware of the Mimitz {N..} visit until he read about it in the papers.
  • letter to Gordon Brown..
  • he championed a candidate for the post of MW Secretary General..
  • he took over as PM he complained that the EA ..
  • important policy decisions are taken by ministries and departments without giving prior intimation to the Prime Minister’s Office..Sometimes the PMC is informed at the last moment.
  • an openly acknowledged source of power operates from 10 Janpath.

It is possible that there is a rapport of sorts between Sonia Gandhi and the PM and that it allows for a rough and ready cooperation. Temperamentally the PM would no doubt be only too happy to distance himself from politics and politicking. But a man so thoroughly committed to the cause of economic progress based on a market economy is too easily persuaded that this cause can be isolated from politics.
In a highly politicised nation such as India, the economy’s dependence on politics is more decisive than any dependence in reverse. No surprise then that an increasingly irritated PM, almost tacitly kept outside the loop, is trying to turn “politicalâ€
Last edited by SaiK on 15 Jul 2007 22:42, edited 1 time in total.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 15 Jul 2007 22:41

Composition of Indian Team
Besides Narayanan, the Indian team for the challenging exercise comprises Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Anil Kakodkar, another AEC official R B Grover, Indian Ambassador to the US Ronen Sen, his Deputy Raminder Singh Jassal, India's High Commissioner to Singapore S Jaishankar and Joint Secretary (Americas) Gaitri Kumar.

What happened to D. B. Venkatesh Varma from PMO?

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 15 Jul 2007 23:05

ramana wrote:Also about these Geneva games think about the fact that its 9 years after POKII. Is it possible that GOI did not accumulate adequate materials? Of the 9 years 6 years were under NDA.
I dont know any better and am asking for opinion.

Depends on the definition of 'adequate materials'. From the "Geneva" series of articles:
...........in accepting to negotiate an FMCT, China sees advantage in a treaty that would cap India’s fissile material production...................... The question then is, does India have enough?

The fright at the Geneva developments would suggest not.

Also:
A.[quote]The “responsive infrastructureâ€

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 16 Jul 2007 00:02

Time to rethink J18M2 itself, now that the US agenda has become crystal clear to everyone (hopefully including MMS!!)?

India & Iran peril – I
Realists, not to speak of pro-deal ideologues, would argue that the stage for reconsideration is well past, that the 2005 position has been built on with the March 2006 Manmohan Singh-Bush joint statement, that Parliament, including BJP and CPI-M deal oppositionists, are ready to accept a final pact within the four walls of these two statements, that the deal is in the nature of a fait accompli, and that warts and all, it suits us. It doesn't. Not only does the deal have an overarching purpose to make us uranium addicted and block our sole – but difficult – route to energy independence via Homi Bhabha's visionary three-stage thorium fuel cycle, it also inaugurates in the worst time for the world with every indication that Iran will become a nuclear weapons’ power while we get hampered to test.

India & Iran peril – II
India cannot allow itself to be distracted by how Iran’s potential weaponization would be confronted by the US. It's supreme national interest should be determined by an assumption that Iran is very close to becoming a nuclear weapons' power, and that this will happen sooner than later.

An explosive testing may have a political purpose (to impress one’s own population, like Pakistan does), a deterrent aim (to bring renewed pressure on neighbours and/ or rivals), or could, as with India’s case, stir from an absolute felt need to refine existing weapons and/ or to check out new designs.

If the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement was what it is claimed to be, a pact that sanctifies civilian atomic trade with India in all its aspects, there should be no conditions, explicit or implied, concerning India’s strategic programme. Once there is a separation of the civil and military programmes, and full IAEA safeguards apply to the civilian assets linked to guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies for them, there is no justification to attach conditions to the strategic programme. Manmohan Singh’s insertion of the unilateral test moratorium clause into the July 2005 statement is a self-inflicted wound amounting to hara-kiri, and now the US pushing in more explicit conditions makes it homicide.

India & Iran peril – III
[quote]“…if India is provided unconstrained access to various types of advanced reactors together with their appropriate fuels,â€

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 16 Jul 2007 02:07

The NPA creates suitable roadblocks for non-NPA signatories like India, for example, the worldwide Uranium trade was effectively cut-off. When the US realized that China was becoming an adversary, post USSR, it sought for ways to shore up its alliances. India was an attractive alternative, which creates for interesting combination of relationships amongst the four players Russia, India, China and the USA. China has used the USA-China relationship to its advantage, the US thinks otherwise. At a previous point in time China-USSR relationship were similar. India-USSR/Russia relationship has endured. The US now understands that the possible gang up of a Russia, China and India is not in its interests and ergo Indian-USA relationship.

As part of the tango between US and India, Indian leadership proposed a solution for its Uranium paucity and the US jumped upon the opportunity to gain a foothold on India. The US also faces an issue on the oil energy front and is searching for alternatives including Nuclear Energy for its own constituency and for providing an impetus to companies like GE, Westinghouse. The US-India negotiation illustrates a very simple point of taking advantage of mutually beneficial situations - India has a need and so does the US and the painful and tortuous birth pangs for a relationship that can gain momentum over time. India can continue on its own trajectory of mastering the thorium cycle and creating alternate energy.

Perky is a NPA attack dog and seized this signal as India wanting the deal, nothing prescient about such a statement but an attempt to gain self propaganda at the worst. Iran is a diversion that the NPA attack dogs created for India. India needs to act in its own interest with regard to Iran. Iran is an important nation in its own right.


Major US firms ready to lobby for Indo-US nuke deal

Major American companies like GE and Boeing as well as a prominent trade body are ready to launch a big lobbying campaign to persuade the Congress to bless the Indo-US civil nuclear deal as soon as any compromise between the two governments is nailed down

The stakes are high for Bush's embattled foreign policy, it added, stressing that aides often cite the thawing of relations with India as a key accomplishment of his presidency at a time of deep frustration in the Middle East and rising tensions with powers such as Russia and China.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 16 Jul 2007 06:18

Indian core team leaves for 123 talks
A core Indian team, headed by National Security Advisor M. K. Narayanan, left for Washington today, for addressing the last mile problem in operationalising the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement.

Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, Department of Atomic Energy chief Anil Kakodkar and senior officials from the DAE and Ministry of External officials are part of the negotiating team, which will have intensive discussions with senior American officials over the next three days (July 16-18 ).


The negotiating team is carrying the UPA government’s mandate cleared at the highest level. Earlier this week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the US President George W Bush had a telephonic conversation that focused mainly on the nuclear deal.

New Delhi feels that if a couple of pending issues are resolved, the nuclear deal can be operationalised by this year end. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is expected to arrive here later this month for giving the much-needed political push to the 123 agreement negotiations.

If all goes as per the expectations of the two governments, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may pay a bilateral visit to the US, possibly even before the Prime Minister’s customary visit to New York for attending the United Nations General Assembly session in September.

On its part, India is going to engage Brazil and South Africa, part of the three-nation IBSA, early next week. Both Brazil and South Africa are members of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group whose nod is a must for kick-starting India’s nuclear commerce with the world. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee is scheduled to hold talks with the Foreign Ministers of Brazil and South Africa here on July 17.

Meanwhile, India and the US are also poised to sign a pact under which their militaries would be able to refuel ships and aircraft in cashless transactions.

Moreover, the two countries would be able to borrow military equipment wherever this is required instead of getting it all the way from home.

The cashless transactions would be balanced at the end of the year, Lt Gen Jeffrey Kohler, director of the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency said at a briefing here yesterday.

The soon-to-be-signed pact is generally known as the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA). The arrangement has been in place for decades and was formerly known as the NATO Mutual Support Act, aimed at simplifying exchanges of logistics support, supplies and services between the US and other NATO forces. The Act was amended thrice in 1986, 1992 and 1994 to permit ACSA with non-NATO countries.

The US has similar agreements in place with more than 60 countries. The US had proposed the pact during the NDA regime but before it could come to fruition, the NDA government bowed out of office.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 16 Jul 2007 06:33

From the above article:

"The facility will also remain in "continuous" safeguards as opposed to "campaign-mode," which is what New Delhi offered for other countries' fuel — although this will be negotiated between India and each supplier country, he added."


Q: What is campaign-mode?

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 16 Jul 2007 06:36

nkumar wrote:From the above article:

"The facility will also remain in "continuous" safeguards as opposed to "campaign-mode," which is what New Delhi offered for other countries' fuel — although this will be negotiated between India and each supplier country, he added."


Q: What is campaign-mode?


It means safeguards will apply only when the facility is reprocessing imported fuel and not when reprocessing Indian origin fuel.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 16 Jul 2007 06:40

It will not be closed off to inspections at any time.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 16 Jul 2007 08:19

US, India begin make-or-break N-talks (TOI)

More sound than light in this TOI 'report', seems like.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23787
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 16 Jul 2007 09:38

Indo-US nuke deal is a high stakes gamble - Tellis
Tellis said he disagreed with the contention in many quarters in New Delhi, including the establishment, that the US has moved the goal-posts on the agreement and said the reason why 123 Agreement has remained in limbo and yet to be sealed is because "what most people don't realize about the 123 is that this is a very challenging agreement for both sides."

He explained that "all the 123 agreements we have concluded before have been done either with non-nuclear weapons states or with nuclear weapons states. There are standard templates that apply to each of these cases. India, in contrast, is in a very odd category all by itself: it is, formally speaking, a non-nuclear weapons state that happens to have nuclear weapons."

"So, coming up with language that addresses India's unique circumstances is something that has taken longer than people expected initially," he said, adding, "It is this structural difficulty of finding legal language to express India's unique circumstances that has been the most difficult part of this negotiation."

Tellis said that 'unlike a joint statement, which is a political declaration where one can afford to use loose formulations, the 123 Agreement is a document really drafted by lawyers for lawyers and so the precision that is required is really remarkable."

He predicted that India's offer of the reported proposal to put a dedicated facility under safeguards, could be a positive contribution to moving the process forward during the talks led by Narayanan.

"In fact, I suspect this will be the subject of discussions," Tellis said, adding, "I have seen what has appeared so far in the press -- and it will be interesting to see what Narayanan and Menon, bringing in terms of specifics. I am sure the US side will be waiting for details on that."

He said that be strongly believed that this proposal "could be an enormously helpful way forward�"

Tellis said: "From both ends, this is a very high-stakes gamble that the President and the prime minister have undertaken. That's why it cannot fail, why it must not fail. For both sides, it is absolutely imperative that we do not fail."

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 16 Jul 2007 10:27

So anyway, returning to my theme of arbitrage, let's compare some examples.


Economically, India has benefited from engaging in labour arbitrage via outsourcing.

AlQaeda has engaged in terrorism arbitrage in the pursuit of its Islamist political goals. They'd collaborate on terrorism with any Muslim in the world having the opportunity for it.

Pak / AQ Khan has engaged in proliferation arbitrage in pursuit of its goal of keep nuclear parity with India. They'd supply N-tech to anyone, and would take N-tech from anyone.

So arbitrage seems to have resulted in gains and improvements by those partaking in it, with little or no adverse consequences.

China's has practiced both military and economic arbitrage, selling both military and consumer goods to anyone who'd care to buy them. This has certainly helped to sustain China's military budget in no small part.

But where is India's geo-political arbitrage for pursuit of our security goals?

India's goal is not mere nuclear parity with Pak, but rather of breaking out of its nuclear isolation, or maintaining its security by being able to handle threats as large as neighboring China.
Where have we applied the practices of arbitrage effectively, in pursuit of these security goals?

How can we practice arbitrage in pursuit of our security goals?
What would be entailed in pursuing such arbitrage?

Geo-political arbitrage to break our nuclear isolation would mean capitalizing on opportunities as they arise, such as the current tensions between Russia and the West, which has led Moscow to suspend compliance with the CFE treaty. India could approach Russia for nuclear cooperation, in order to achieve beneficial changes in the international balance of power, by way of its nuclearization.

A stronger India would be able to block any resumption of a SouthAsian Jihadi policy by the West against a Russian enemy. Certainly increased tensions in Europe could pose the danger of spilling over to SouthAsia, given the past precedent of Western arming of jihadi groups. Also, commercial ties with India and others might help Russia ward off any increased economic sanctions or similar constrictions imposed by an antagonistic West.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 16 Jul 2007 10:48

He explained that "all the 123 agreements we have concluded before have been done either with non-nuclear weapons states or with nuclear weapons states. There are standard templates that apply to each of these cases. India, in contrast, is in a very odd category all by itself: it is, formally speaking, a non-nuclear weapons state that happens to have nuclear weapons."


This stmt takes the cake for nuance. India has all along asked to be in the Nuclear Weapons Category simply because of its independent path towards weaponization and its stature in the world. Add to this, the threat of China in the neighbourhood. This is not conferment of status it is by definition a weapons status.

The NPT language and definition is at odds with the definition of a true Nuclear Weapons states. An arbitrary date was picked to suit the Security Council members for definition of weapons status. Clearly NPT language must be dissolved or changed. It has not worked in practice nor does it stand up to any logical scrutiny in lawyer terms.

"From both ends, this is a very high-stakes gamble that the President and the prime minister have undertaken. That's why it cannot fail, why it must not fail. For both sides, it is absolutely imperative that we do not fail."


The desperation is really beginning to show more from the US. Yes. The writing is on the wall. If the US fails then China laughs, grins and becomes adamant on the world stage. Take it or leave it, that is reality.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 16 Jul 2007 10:59

It seems to me that the desperation, if any, is only from the Bush admin camp, and not from the wider American political establishment. I don't see Democrats falling over themselves to embrace India these days. And amongst the wider Republican tent, I see a lot of them continue to be wary of India as well.

So are Indians trying to reach an accord with Bush (who'll be gone in a couple of years) or America?

Just as the Congress was able to poison July18 with the Hyde Act, they'd be able to poison any signed deal as well. It's no different than how the US has poisoned the CFE Treaty that Russia is now forced to back out of. If their heart's not in it, then it won't be viable in the long run.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 16 Jul 2007 11:30

At some point the Democrats and Outside the tent Republicans have to deal with reality. Hillary is already flaking out big time during the election campaign. When you become President of the US the buck stops and reality bites. You have to deal with Iraq and the post war situation, you have to deal with a Russia, China, trade deficit. The problems never go away and you are left with coming up solutions to the problems. India's rise is inevitable. How are going to deal with China and TSP and Bin Laden and galloping trade deficits. Worldwide energy crisis is happening as we speak. Pollution and Global warming are looming crisis. NPT is just a mere illusive concept. There are very few options left short of another global war.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 16 Jul 2007 11:56

Not sure if this has been posted.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070716/43/6i33n.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2007 17:20


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2007 17:25

This IS THE problem (from the Tellis article):

He explained that "all the 123 agreements we have concluded before have been done either with non-nuclear weapons states or with nuclear weapons states. There are standard templates that apply to each of these cases. India, in contrast, is in a very odd category all by itself: it is, formally speaking, a non-nuclear weapons state that happens to have nuclear weapons."


When India signed off on the J18, her goal was "equal" treatment, which meant to be treated as a WS, even if one paper anyone did not. Were the US and Bush in particular so daft as to believe otherwise?

This is a very childish (but an accurate) statement.

The J18 moves India forward, the Hyde Act moves India backward.

The statement - moving goal-posts - was first made IIRC by AK, and, I view this from tellis as a arm twisting of AK in person.

the timing of this tellis interview is also critical - they could have published it after these meetings.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 16 Jul 2007 18:20

Well, this is why I made a comparison between N-Deal and Oslo "Peace Process", because both were undertaken with naive rose-coloured glasses, deliberately ducking the hard thorny issues that would easily break any deal.

Sorry, but in order to even look towards a deal, there has to be some basic common ground on the core issues. You can't leave the core issues out, thinking that they'll just fall into place once the peripheral issues are sorted out.

Looks like an Oslo-style case of each side spinning the J18 statement in entirely different ways. There was never any basis for a deal, and each side was simply deluding itself. Now reality is bringing the reveries crashing down.

Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 586
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Postby Raja Ram » 16 Jul 2007 18:26

Someone should inform Tellis that India is not a Non Nuclear Weapon State as defined in their NPT simply because India is not a signatory to the treaty. Such definitions and their consequences do not apply to India. Nor does it apply to Pakistan for that matter.

The reality is that India is a nuclear weapon state and it is not bound by any obligation to freeze its capability. In fact it is even free to pass on the technology to any other country too! The provisions of non proliferation do not apply legally on India. India is bound only by the individual agreements with countries with whom in collaboration it has built nuclear reactors. They are under the specific safeguards of the IAEA. India is also a member of the IAEA and under that has some obligations against proliferation. India has chosen to adhere to the principles of non proliferation purely on its own accord.

The status of India as a nuclear power is unique in the sense that it very much a nuclear power like the P-5 but it does not ascribe to the contention that the nuclear powers can exist only under the umbrella agreement of the NPT. India has simply chosen not to be part of that unequal arrangement and hence does not care to get the official status.

This deal if concluded will recognise this unique Indian position. The NPT has been used by the West to keep India out of all aspects of nuclear cooperation in the civil sector. The West cited these rules to which India has never subscribed. Now with this negotiation, the US has broken that so called self mandated ostracization policy of India.

That is why it is of vital importance to keep this deal strictly about civilian nuclear cooperation. Any reference to India's strategic programme has simply no place. Be it covert, overt, implicit or tenous.

Now what you see is being attempted here by Tellis is to bring in India into the NPT ambit through a tenous link, by trying to state to define India's nuclear status through NPT terminology.

ABV quite clearly stated post Pokharan in the floor of the Lok Sabha - "India's nuclear status is not something that is for anyone to bestow or give it is a legacy of India's scientific community to this nation."

It is important to understand the nuance here. This negotations are still a unique combination of strategic posturing, India's independence on strategic options, nuclear enegy development including fuel access, and breaking out of nuclear apartheid to collaborate with other powers in equal footing commensurate with our capability and potential. It is all of this.

The team composition indicates a closing of ranks by GOI and the public statements in the recent past clearly indicates that the deal will not be done at all costs. While there is still doubts in the minds of many that:

(i) the PMO's eagerness may have transcended traditional caution lines to get a "legacy" deal or

(ii) the PMO is ready to accept that India should settle for a role as an subordinate alliance member of the Western Alliance of Democracies", in return for economic growth and prosperity for masses

the actions of the GOI in the last few days give hope that it is not the case. It is not something that is shared by the members here. It is being shared by the prinicipal opposition including the ex PM and concerned members of the Scientific community and the armed forces. Eternal vigil is therefore necessary.

Just a ramble as usual

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6685
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 16 Jul 2007 18:36

Have we had Brahma Chellaney's or Bharat Karnard's views on the latest circus on the 'deal'?

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Inspections Scope Creep

Postby vnadendla » 16 Jul 2007 18:58

The NPT itself is undergoing scope creep. Will any Inspections we agree to lead to scope creep. Will Someday the inspectors at the reprocessing plant decide that only way they can do their job is to inspect the thorium power future plant and we get all sorts of pressures put on us.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: Inspections Scope Creep

Postby vsudhir » 16 Jul 2007 19:04

vnadendla wrote:The NPT itself is undergoing scope creep. Will any Inspections we agree to lead to scope creep. Will Someday the inspectors at the reprocessing plant decide that only way they can do their job is to inspect the thorium power future plant and we get all sorts of pressures put on us.


If this deal dies, there's *no* reason why India should accept *any* further safeguards/inspections etc from anybody.

We aren't getting U fuel, why agree to inspections? Our fuel now is our own, our reactors and tech are our own, the IAEA, NPAs and NPTers can go take a walk.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2007 19:06

IF Tellis could repharse his statement:

it is, formally speaking, a <strike>non-</strike>nuclear weapons state that <strike>happens</strike> needs to have nuclear weapons."

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Re: Inspections Scope Creep

Postby vnadendla » 16 Jul 2007 19:21

vsudhir wrote:
vnadendla wrote:The NPT itself is undergoing scope creep. Will any Inspections we agree to lead to scope creep. Will Someday the inspectors at the reprocessing plant decide that only way they can do their job is to inspect the thorium power future plant and we get all sorts of pressures put on us.


If this deal dies, there's *no* reason why India should accept *any* further safeguards/inspections etc from anybody.

We aren't getting U fuel, why agree to inspections? Our fuel now is our own, our reactors and tech are our own, the IAEA, NPAs and NPTers can go take a walk.


I was taking about when the deal goes through. Did we discuss this? I almost now want the deal to fail

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 16 Jul 2007 19:26

vnadendla wrote:
I was taking about when the deal goes through.


The scam being pulled right now by the US and its lifafas like C. Rajamohan is the pretense that "time is running out" "this is a last-ditch effort" etc.

The US admin is trying to spin this "deal" as having some sort of expiry date with the additional claim that "the next president may not be very supportive" and the intent is to hustle the current Indian govt. into acting on the "Deal" sooner than necessary (from the Indian POV). We all know that the current US president has done nothing to stop the Hyde act or roll it back, so how come everyone in DC is in such a tearing hurry all of a sudden?

This "deal" is bound to keep walking even after bush is gone, much to the consternation of Pro-US-mercenary "experts" like Rajamohan.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Rephrasing on inspections scope creep even with J18

Postby vnadendla » 16 Jul 2007 19:50

I am rephrasing to make my concern clearer given its importance (I think). Even if the deal goes through with J18 and as India wants it I am afraid there will be attempts at inspections scope creep from civilian to military & non military indegenous reactors.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6685
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 16 Jul 2007 20:18

Rye wrote: We all know that the current US president has done nothing to stop the Hyde act or roll it back, so how come everyone in DC is in such a tearing hurry all of a sudden?


Indeed, and so much for the self-serving hot air dished by DDM dorks that this 'deal' is soooo important and GW looses sleep over it because this is the only foreign policy success he can showcase as part of his legacy. GW has delegated this tamasha to his erudite policy wonk minions like Nick whose main goal is the CRE of India's strategic nuke program. GW could care less which way this thing goes, I mean 'deal' (meaning defacto CRE) or no 'deal' (status quo).

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 16 Jul 2007 21:25

Someone mentioned US intentions....?

Watch those H1-B hires, FBI tells American firms

Link

Apologies if this has been posted earlier!

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 16 Jul 2007 22:40

Manav wrote:Someone mentioned US intentions....?

Watch those H1-B hires, FBI tells American firms

Link

Apologies if this has been posted earlier!


China.

FBI Tracks Chinese Student Agents

China protests unfriendly FBI advertisements

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54170
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 16 Jul 2007 22:45

X-posted from Iran thread by Rye as to how Iran and Nuke deal are linked. Please connect the dots....

Rye wrote:
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation


So NB is in charge of both Iran and India because the two are joined at the hip from the US POV. If we are to conjecture as to how India's "deal" and Iran's "nuclear plans" are related from the POV of US SD jocks, then if India signs up as USA's sub junior partner in Asia (China is the junior partner), India's long-term Iran policy will be dead as a doornail in a very short time.

So we have

a) US itching to throw the ME in turmoil by attacking Iran under the pretense of Iran's nuclear program

b) US supporting the Pakistani army, which will of course assist the US in destabilizing Iran if an Iran war should come to fruition

c) Without the so-called "strategic partnership", the US would be hard pressed to find any support for their new Iran adventure in the Indian political scene.

d) Unlike the Indo-US deal, the Bush admin's ability to create trouble in Iran DOES HAVE A DEADLINE (before Bush leaves office). This is possibly why the US lifafas like Rajamohan are harping that "time is running out"...it sure is, but only for the Bush admin.

Tying the above together, maybe the Nick Burns/Bush admin game plan is to execute the following phases:

Step 1: Get India to sign off on a "strategic partnership" with USA
Step 2: Declare war on Iran with the intent of throwing the ME into Chaos
Step 3: Leverage the "Strategic partnership" to provide warm bodies in Iran in place of US troops.

All in all a *terrible* "deal" for the Indian people.

All of this seems to suggest that India's best bet to is keep negotiating beyond the tenure of Bush Jr.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3046
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 16 Jul 2007 22:51

sunilUpa wrote:
Manav wrote:Someone mentioned US intentions....?

Watch those H1-B hires, FBI tells American firms

Link

Apologies if this has been posted earlier!


China.

FBI Tracks Chinese Student Agents


China protests unfriendly FBI advertisements


44% of all people in H1B status are from India. Only 9% are of Chinese origin. If the reports are true, then anything done by the FBI is going to disproportionately affect Indians who try to obtain or renew work authorization. This deserves a reaction either public or through back channels from the Indian side.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7885
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Inspections Scope Creep

Postby Gerard » 16 Jul 2007 22:58

vnadendla wrote:The NPT itself is undergoing scope creep. Will any Inspections we agree to lead to scope creep. Will Someday the inspectors at the reprocessing plant decide that only way they can do their job is to inspect the thorium power future plant and we get all sorts of pressures put on us.


India is no stranger to inspections. There have been IAEA inspections for decades now (at the 4 power plants under safeguards).
In addition, there have been campaign safeguards at the plutonium reprocessing plants whenever foreign origin fuel has been reprocessed.

The DAE is quite experienced in negotiating with the IAEA. They know all the tricks. In addition, India as a SNW, but not a NWS under the NPT, is going to be treated differently than a NNWS by the IAEA, whether the NPAs like it or not. There will be no tracking down of a few kg of 'missing' Pu here or there. Not when India has reprocessing plants capable of producing hundreds of kg of weapons grade material per year.

The IAEA is going to have to send inspectors at facilities where 2 out of the 4 reactors are under safeguards. They can do what they like at the safeguarded reactors but the military reactors, located a few hundred meters away will be off limits. This of course annoys the NPAs. In their fanboy world, they see inspections as some exciting police detective game where they find proof of some crime. In reality, inspections will be only to ensure there is no diversion of foreign fuel.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 16 Jul 2007 23:10

Just to provide another data point for the agenda of the NPT Ayatollahs, IAEA is reporting the successful shutdown for North Korea's nuclear plant. I presume Iran is next and who knows who is next...

N.Korea has shut its nuclear reactor, IAEA chief

U.N. inspectors have verified that North Korea has shut down its sole functioning nuclear reactor, the chief of the watchdog agency said Monday, confirming Pyongyang's first step to halt production of atomic weapons in nearly five years.

"Our inspectors are there. They verified the shutting down of the reactor yesterday,'' said Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 16 Jul 2007 23:15

vera_k wrote:
sunilUpa wrote:
Manav wrote:Someone mentioned US intentions....?

Watch those H1-B hires, FBI tells American firms

Link

Apologies if this has been posted earlier!


China.

FBI Tracks Chinese Student Agents



China protests unfriendly FBI advertisements


44% of all people in H1B status are from India. Only 9% are of Chinese origin. If the reports are true, then anything done by the FBI is going to disproportionately affect Indians who try to obtain or renew work authorization. This deserves a reaction either public or through back channels from the Indian side.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf


Counterintelligence Domain Program is basically aimed at preventing theft of breakthrough technologies at Universities and research labs. Vast majority of Indian H1B are not in these field and will not be affected.

However it is the students who may be affected, especially those entering hitech fields be it Bitech, Genetics or defence realted fields. South Koreans, Indians and Chinese are the largest groups of students enrolling in advanced courses in STEM desciplines. Almost 50% + of Ph Ds are foreign born. It is believed that China has significant espoinage operation using these students. Hence all the hoopla.

one more story

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2007 23:18

Sightly dated artcile (September 2006), but infomrative, so enjoy:

INDIA-US NUCLEAR AGREEMENT

by: M.R. Iyer, former Head, RSS Division, BARC & former Safeguards Inspector, IAEA.

[quote]
Background

It was Dr. Homi Bhabha who presided over the first
Geneva Conference in 1955 which for the first time opened
up nuclear technology to the world following President
Eisenhower’s atoms for peace program. It is an anachronism
that India who along with other nations was instrumental in
opening up the technology to the world are now knocking at
the door to get admitted. Dr Bhabha was one of the originators
of the International Atomic Energy Agency and India a
member of the Council which formed the IAEA. Dr.
Chidambaram during his tenure as Chairman of the IAEA
Board of Governors while unveiling the bust of Dr. Bhabha
at the IAEA headquarters in 1997 mentioned that it was
Dr.Bhabha’s casting vote which decided the IAEA HQ in
favour of Vienna rather than Geneva. Due to pioneering
contributions in establishing IAEA India is one of the 10
designated members of the Board of Governors. During this
half century we have gone through several vicissitudes in
isolation but the Indian nuclear technology stood the tests
and matured well thanks to the successive enlightened
leaderships.

[b]Dr. Kakodkar, Chairman AEC addressing IAEA general
conference last month on September 20th announced about
the “emerging possibility for expanding civil nuclear
cooperation between India and the international community
and India’s preparedness to contribute to international efforts
in scaling new technological frontiers such as fast breeder
reactors as an equal partnerâ€
Last edited by NRao on 16 Jul 2007 23:19, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest