Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 22 Jul 2007

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

Postby vnadendla » 25 Jul 2007 18:43

Rye wrote:vnadendla wrote:

You are not getting me. Ideas and knowledge don't directly translate to $$$$. Commercialization, mass marketing, competition, work arounds, mass production, capital and labor availability, political power and what not (also called luck by people who don't understand) influence the $$$$.



Yes, yes, but there will be no mass marketing and all the other jazz without the seed of the IP. Once you provide some crucial inputs (and you may or may not know which part of your knowledge is worth stealing), your competitors WILL leapfrog..handing over IP to competitors is typically an exercise in self-destruction.

Competitors are not your friends or enemies, but they will whatever it takes to gain an edge over you, so giving away your edge to them for free will get you nothing.


Even then after you sell it people can reverse engineer.


That is why you do R&D to move to the next step while your competitors are reverse engineering your stuff. Of course, if the general strategy is to be sitting on your laurels,then the competitors can leapfrog you.


All said I am saying India needs to get back all the capital stolen during the colonial era by Selling its billion-dollar IP to its competitors.



IP won't get you a billion dollars if you hand it over to your competitors.
You only get a billion dollars by selling the end product well ahead of your competitors. Once you IP leaves your hands, you can say goodbye to your billion dollar dreams.

IP is usually narrowly defined, so you hand over your idea, and it can be tweaked into a "different" idea, and then you get nothing for giving your idea away. Selling goods and end products based on your IP/knowledge is what builds local industry and generates revenue.


Tell me what are you going to sell? Energy? Reactors that you prevent others from peering inside (US attempt that is failing)? Finished goods made with energy?

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Postby merlin » 25 Jul 2007 18:55

PS : Can somebody tell me if CCPA and CCS are one and the same ?? or is it the usual DDM'itis.. If they are indeed separate entities, then we have our hands full.


Nope they are different entities. For instance Laloo Prasad is a member of CCPA but not of CCS. Same holds for Arjun Singh.

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

Postby Rye » 25 Jul 2007 19:02

vnadendla wrote:
Tell me what are you going to sell? Energy? Reactors that you prevent others from peering inside (US attempt that is failing)? Finished goods made with energy?


The question is a bit vague since "selling energy" or being a player in the market means being able to acquire contracts to build nuke plants, selling nuclear fuel, and the more traditional stuff like creating a grid etc. I think we are talking only about the first two items at this point.

Selling finished goods from energy is not related to the energy market, so it is irrelevant in this context, so we can ignore that. Otherwise, "All of the above" seems like the right answer to me.

I can see one scenario where getting your competitors to buy into your ideas can be in your self-interest. For example, there have been instances where Company X is not a big player but has some unique IP with a high barrier to entry (this is important) into that market. Now, company X cannot get any traction for its idea unless MNC behemoths that are competitors buy into this idea, because they know that if the MNC behemoths see their market share being eaten by company X, they will put all their efforts to create FUD (Fear Uncertainty doubt) about company X and its products. So the best bet for company X is to sell the idea without selling the details (IP) and to try and convince the rest of them that they can have a share of the market along with X if they move in a new direction. Of course, in this case, the assumption is that the market does not know the value of X's product and thus X needs to convince its competitors.

In the case of energy, I don't think anyone needs to be convinced about the value and utility of a technology that can generate tons of energy without drawbacks such as having to store all nuclear waste in perpetuity. I think it is okay to sell an idea without selling the details (IP).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 25 Jul 2007 19:19

WashPost :: July 25, 2007 :: India Approves Nuclear Deal With US

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; 5:05 AM



NEW DELHI -- India's Cabinet has signed off on the technical details of a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, moving a step closer to finalizing a pact touted as the cornerstone of an emerging partnership, officials said Wednesday.

The broad deal was approved two years ago, but talks on its technical aspects had dragged on, held up by American reluctance to allow India to reprocess spent atomic fuel _ a key step in making atomic weapons _ and Indian demands for a guaranteed fuel supply for reactors. New Delhi also wanted the right to test nuclear weapons.

How those issues were resolved remains an open question. Neither side has released details of the deal since Friday, when they said it was nearly complete and awaiting final approval.

But after the Indian Cabinet's committees on security and political affairs jointly met and approved the deal Wednesday, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters that "all concerns of India have been reflected and have been adequately addressed."

Officials in the United States still have to approve the technical agreement.

The nuclear pact is seen as the foundation of closer India-U.S. relations. The deal allows the United States to ship nuclear fuel and technology to India, which in exchange would open its civilian nuclear reactors to international inspectors. India's military reactors would remain off-limits.

The two sides first struck the deal in July 2005, and the U.S. Congress last year approved the overall pact, leaving New Delhi and Washington to hammer out an agreement detailing how the nuclear cooperation would actually work.

With that agreement sewn up, India's government now plans to brief its left-wing political allies and the Hindu nationalist opposition _ both of which have expressed fears the pact could undermine India's nuclear weapons program and the country's sovereignty.

Once President Bush's administration approves the deal, as it is expected to do, it must once again get Congressional approval.

India also needs to make a separate agreement with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material.

© 2007 The Associated Press

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

Postby vnadendla » 25 Jul 2007 20:19

Rye wrote:vnadendla wrote:
Tell me what are you going to sell? Energy? Reactors that you prevent others from peering inside (US attempt that is failing)? Finished goods made with energy?


The question is a bit vague since "selling energy" or being a player in the market means being able to acquire contracts to build nuke plants, selling nuclear fuel, and the more traditional stuff like creating a grid etc. I think we are talking only about the first two items at this point.

Selling finished goods from energy is not related to the energy market, so it is irrelevant in this context, so we can ignore that. Otherwise, "All of the above" seems like the right answer to me.

I can see one scenario where getting your competitors to buy into your ideas can be in your self-interest. For example, there have been instances where Company X is not a big player but has some unique IP with a high barrier to entry (this is important) into that market. Now, company X cannot get any traction for its idea unless MNC behemoths that are competitors buy into this idea, because they know that if the MNC behemoths see their market share being eaten by company X, they will put all their efforts to create FUD (Fear Uncertainty doubt) about company X and its products. So the best bet for company X is to sell the idea without selling the details (IP) and to try and convince the rest of them that they can have a share of the market along with X if they move in a new direction. Of course, in this case, the assumption is that the market does not know the value of X's product and thus X needs to convince its competitors.

In the case of energy, I don't think anyone needs to be convinced about the value and utility of a technology that can generate tons of energy without drawbacks such as having to store all nuclear waste in perpetuity. I think it is okay to sell an idea without selling the details (IP).


Got your point. The point I am making is don't expect India to be rich just by selling nuclear reactors (with ip controls) like the Arabs did oil. People are not going to give you trillions - they will beg borrow cheat steal their way around. Even Arabs oil had its theft attempts - and its physical. IP is easier to steal - reverse engineer etc. Marketing to Africa in competition with GNEP will be difficult with all political obstacles put in way. The best I can see is our technology saving our oil import bill.

We are NOT yet there where we can control even a vertical slice of world economy. It takes more than IP to get $$$$. Its always best to understand our limitations and work off them.

A UNSC + 1 arrangement + X00 B in investment in India and a free trade agreement with US should be enough to share IP.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Jul 2007 20:24

vnadendla wrote: The point I am making is don't expect India to be rich just by selling nuclear reactors (with ip controls) like the Arabs did oil. People are not going to give you trillions - they will beg borrow cheat steal their way around. Even Arabs oil had its theft attempts - and its physical. IP is easier to steal - reverse engineer etc. Marketing to Africa in competition with GNEP will be difficult with all political obstacles put in way. The best I can see is our technology saving our oil import bill.
Thorium?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53980
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 25 Jul 2007 20:32

merlin wrote:
PS : Can somebody tell me if CCPA and CCS are one and the same ?? or is it the usual DDM'itis.. If they are indeed separate entities, then we have our hands full.


Nope they are different entities. For instance Laloo Prasad is a member of CCPA but not of CCS. Same holds for Arjun Singh.


They are a different sub groups in the Cabinet and had a joint meeting as the press release says.

CCS: PM, RM, HM, MEA & Finance Minimum
CCPA: Who ever the PM wants in.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Jul 2007 20:34

[quote]hauryaT
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2007 02:54 pm Post subject:
vnadendla wrote:
The point I am making is don't expect India to be rich just by selling nuclear reactors (with ip controls) like the Arabs did oil. People are not going to give you trillions - they will beg borrow cheat steal their way around. Even Arabs oil had its theft attempts - and its physical. IP is easier to steal - reverse engineer etc. Marketing to Africa in competition with GNEP will be difficult with all political obstacles put in way. The best I can see is our technology saving our oil import bill.
Thorium?[/quote

IN fact you can make lot of money selling nuclear reactors but then you need to assure the fuel too and ther lies the catch and the ability to ensure the plutonium extracted from the spent fuels or extra enrichment of the low enriched uranium not going the wrong way .

Thorium is a diffrent ball game the reacor is far more complex still in early development stage and with the existing techlogy available you need fast breeders to irradiate the thorium blanket to produce u233 and subsequently enrich it to use in reactor or whatever .And since fast breeders produce more plutonium that it consumes the risks are too great

savit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 07:37

Postby savit » 25 Jul 2007 20:36


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

Postby Rye » 25 Jul 2007 20:39

vnadendla wrote:

The point I am making is don't expect India to be rich just by selling nuclear reactors (with ip controls) like the Arabs did oil. People are not going to give you trillions - they will beg borrow cheat steal their way around.


I think the order needs to be:

1) Use Indian IP/knowledge to build the first few generations of reactors in India and to learn lessons on commercializing the tech. No danger of IP stealing upto this point with appropriate safeguards, I think.

2) Based on this knowledge, provide "aid" to countries that will assist in Indian interests in some way or just go around hawking for contracts to build such plants in geostrategically important/useful areas by building plants on our dime and selling fuel etc.

I think the gap between realization of 1 and 2 will be in the order of decades...enough time for us to maintain or increase the 10-15 year lead India has on its competitors in this field (Gerard posted a news report from Australia indicating the same).

I think the barrier to entry into competition with India in the nuke reactor field is in the order of 10-15 years which should be enough lead time for us to solve other harder problems....assuming that we have adequate human resources...

Even Arabs oil had its theft attempts - and its physical. IP is easier to steal - reverse engineer etc.


Stealing/reverse engg. becomes a reality only when the plants are physically located outside Indian territory, no...barring the usual Indian moles and spies in the nuke establishment.....but I guess you are saying that the latter is almost a given.

A UNSC + 1 arrangement + X00 B in investment in India and a free trade agreement with US should be enough to share IP.



I think there is no argument against the fact the US has more capital and has plenty of practise in commercializing technology --- India is behind the learning curve in that arena, so any winning strategy for India would require that India get up to speed in this arena before we let the US and other competitors walk away with the prize (the global energy market).

The situation that would really kill us is when the IP is handed over and then everyone zooms ahead while India ends up playing catch up in commercializing its technology.....not to mention that they will be undercutting all their competitors (including India). Sounds like a very terrible idea to share IP with the US before India has gained all the smarts to commercialize its tech.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 25 Jul 2007 23:07




Walker's World: India's nuclear deal

Published: July 25, 2007 at 10:50 AM
By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor Emeritus
India's nuclear deal with the United States, finally brokered after personal intervention by Vice President Dick Cheney, is part of a wider pattern of U.S.-Indian strategic cooperation that is turning India into an Asian regional superpower.
Published: July 25, 2007 at 10:50 AM
E-mail Story | Print Preview | License
By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor Emeritus
MUNICH, Germany, July 25 (UPI) -- It is a striking coincidence that the Indian and U.S. governments should have announced the successful conclusion of their long-stalled nuclear cooperation deal in the same week that India established its first overseas military base.

India's new base, an electronic listening post and radar station on the island of Madagascar, is perfectly situated to monitor the international waterways around South Africa and the Indian Ocean with its oil tanker routes to Asia. India has also leased an atoll from Mauritius on which a similar facility is to be built. Its navy has secured berthing rights in Oman, and signed an agreement last year to patrol the Mozambique coast. In 2003, the Indian navy provided seaward protection for the African Union summit at Mozambique.

The Indian Ocean is increasingly under Indian management, led by a fast-growing navy that is buying advanced French-made Scorpene "stealth" submarines and has just acquired its first ever U.S. warship, the former USS Trenton, a large amphibious transport and landing ship, along with U.S. UH-3H helicopters. Three months ago, India completed a $1.1 billion deal with the United States for Hercules military transport.

The United States sees India as a key strategic partner and as a potential balance against China's potential dominance of Asia, and is prepared to equip India for the role. Already one of the world's biggest customers for arms, spending over $10 billion in the last three years, India is now planning to buy 126 multi-role combat jets. The US F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet are seen as the main contenders in a deal that could be worth another $10 billion. A new study by India's Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry, "Private Sector Participation in Defense," suggests that India's imports of military hard and software should reach $30 billion by 2012.

This is the strategic context for the nuclear deal, which ends the isolation from the nuclear community that was imposed on India when it staged its first nuclear tests in 1998, and will allow India to import nuclear fuels and technology under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This will be important for India's civilian nuclear power program, but its main impact is symbolic in asserting the new closeness of the U.S. strategic partnership.

The deal has been stalled over some of the terms imposed by the U.S. Congress under the Hyde Act, which sought to impose certain restrictions on India. The first was to hold the deal hostage, allowing it to be suspended if India staged more nuclear tests. The second was to bring some, but not all, of India's nuclear rectors under the intensive inspection regime of the NPT and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The most authoritative opposition to the deal has come from Peter Iyengar, former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, who listed his concerns in an exclusive United Press International interview at his home in New Delhi with this reporter in February this year.

"As currently drafted, the agreement would force us to stop re-processing nuclear fuel, something we have been doing for thirty years," Iyengar said. "It would terminate our strategic program (India's nuclear weapons program) by exposing us to sanctions if we conducted nuclear tests. And it puts impossible barriers in our path to ongoing and future research, including our well-developed programs for fast-breeder reactors and to use thorium rather than uranium as a nuclear fuel," he added.

"By saying that India shall not re-process fuel and not develop the fast-breeder reactors, this deal undermines our ability to produce energy in the future when uranium runs out," Dr Iyengar went on. "This is a question of national sovereignty, of India's right and ability to decide such things for ourselves."

The Hyde Act was designed to be watertight, but somehow the Bush administration has managed to accommodate India's concerns. This was done, to widespread surprise last week, when Vice President Dick Cheney took personal charge of the talks in Washington with India's National Security adviser M.K. Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and Anil Kakodkar, secretary of India's Department of Atomic Energy

Menon was packed and about to check out from his hotel when Cheney intervened and brought Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice into the final phase of talks, which opened with Cheney saying, "This deal must be done." The White House national security adviser Steven Hadley was also brought into the talks to fine tune the text of a document called "The 123 agreement" that spells out the details of the deal.

The precise terms have not yet been made public, and the final document is a frozen text, which means that it can now only be voted up or down, and not amended further. According to U.S. sources, it is based on Cheney's traditionally robust view of the president's prerogative over foreign policy and strategic issues, and allows George W. Bush or future presidents to give India a form of waiver under the terms of the Hyde Act when supreme U.S. national interests are deemed to be at stake.

The Democratic-controlled Congress may have doubts about this, but potential presidential candidates may see its usefulness. The increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, with two new Bush-appointed justices, is likely to sympathize with Cheney's view of the presidential prerogative.

The deal has been strongly backed by the wealthy and influential Indian community in the United States. Sanjay Puri, chairman of the U.S.-India Political Action Committee commented: "The United States and India have achieved what everyone thought was impossible when President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced their plan for a civil nuclear agreement in July 2005. Exactly two years later, the two nations have not only reached an agreement, but created a lifelong partnership between two nations that are committed to democratic principles and the idea of energy independence."

This also seals the presence on the world stage of India's emergence as a regional superpower in Asia, while becoming a close U.S. ally and a major economic and technological force. Next month, India will launch its first dedicated military reconnaissance satellite, CARTOSAT 2A, on one of its own launch vehicles. Two more advanced imaging satellites with Israeli synthetic aperture radars are to be launched next year for all-weather monitoring of Asian airspace, including China

It may also not be a coincidence that these developments come as China is upgrading its ballistic missile facility at central-north Delingha, where launch pads for older Dong Feng-4 intercontinental ballistic missiles are being modernized for new DF-21 medium-range missiles. A report this month by the Nuclear Information Project for the Federation of American Scientists concluded that the DF-21s "would be able to hold at risk all of northern India, including New Delhi."
Del.icio.us | Digg it | RSS

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
United Press International, UPI, the UPI logo, and other trademarks and service marks, are registered or unregistered trademarks of United Press International, Inc. in the United States and in other countries.




Highlights by ramana

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 25 Jul 2007 23:10

Nuclear agreement: PM meets Left leaders

Wednesday, 25 July , 2007, 22:55

New Delhi: Hours after key cabinet committees approved the draft Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement reached in Washington, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday night met top Left leaders to allay their concerns over the matter.


However, the Left leaders wanted to study the full text of the draft before they could react to it, Left sources said.

Full coverage: Indo-US nuclear deal

In the meeting, Left leaders Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechury, both from the CPM, and A B Bardhan and D Raja of the CPI were told by the Prime Minister that the government had tried to address the concerns expressed by Left and other parties in the Parliament, sources said.

Manmohan said he thought the draft 123 Agreement was in national interest, they said.

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was also present in the meeting in which Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan and Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar briefed the Left leaders on the recent negotiations in Washington with the US authorities.

The Left leaders suggested that another round of meeting could be held after they go through the full text of the draft.

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

Postby John Snow » 25 Jul 2007 23:13

Walker is no good talker, who is Peter Iyengar?

Is walker an evaglist who converts people?

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

Postby vsudhir » 25 Jul 2007 23:22

John Snow wrote:Walker is no good talker, who is Peter Iyengar?

Is walker an evaglist who converts people?


Walker's talkers are full of bloopers.

He refers to the 1998 N-tests as India's first, for one. Hard 2 take his spiel seriously after blatancies like that.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 25 Jul 2007 23:37

Ignore the mistakes and focus on the larger

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 23:50

on the larger.. we have to quickly deploy anti missile systems to counter the df-21.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests