Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 01 Aug 2007

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 02 Aug 2007 09:51

Hi ldev,

Hi ldev, thank you very much for making these points.

Yes, of course I was making a speech. It was a response, to say that speeches aren't hard to make.


I believe that we have to stand on our own two feet. For example, we get that three-stage flourishing, they'll come running with (far) sweeter deals! We get the MCA up and running, gee whiz! And solar up that whole village, boy better CNN articles! See what will happen when the ATV comes out! Educate our people, and its Kerala's literacy-rate pride everywhere. So I believe we have to stand on our own two feet. That's what we really earn in the end. The obvious point to be made in response, but how the heck do you get on your own two feet...simply wishing it won't happen. And that is why I respect enqyoob's point.

Ab samuel ko gussa kyon ata hai?

Are bhiyya kya bataoon, kismet he aise hai.

Yeh kehte hai equal-equal nation, woh kuch nahin bolte.
Veelu reprocessing antaru, avaru pakalam chonnaru.
Testing is my birthright bole, te ve batti dendene.
TIFR lo kuda, IAEA de putr a bhait jandene.
Bhaiyya kya bataoun, rasgulle baant rahe hain, par Kakodkar sahab meethi bath nahi na kar rahe.

Imagine if we could put all those billions of dollars into retaining talent. Imagine if we could start many more nuclear engineering departments with that money, imagine, if we made it our business to get new talent...kaon lega pange?

A little theatrical and not cogent enough, but I promise to come back with sound answers precisely in the context of this deal. The larger question of how we get on our own two feet may well be beyond the scope of this thread, but I am happy to take that on another.

Your points are not at all in contradiction the way I see it.

S

ldev wrote:
samuel wrote:And the next time we get screwed by another country purporting to supply us with stuff from here to infinity at the ain moment, you're going to tell that child on the street that we lost our wars, or worse our freedom, or that other nations treat us with disdain because these guys decided to turn off the switch and we put all our trust in them?

Your making speeches here when you are a lot smarter than that


samuelbhai,

Pardon me for this interjection into your so very nice discussion with enqyoob, but me thinks that you are making speeches here. Such as you are talking about getting screwed by another country. If you should lift your eyes and look at the Indian naval discussion thread, you will realize that India is getting screwed right this moment by the Russians on the Admiral Gorshkov issue. No amount of big bums can prevent a nation from being screwed, just as the Bangladesh Rifles have killed Indian BSF personnel in cold blood inspite of India having many big bums. So being screwed can happen with 100 bums. What makes you think it will stop after India has 2000 bums.

Then you talk about India being treated with disdain. Now, I dont know which part of the world you live in. But me thinks that if you travel outside India on an Indian passport as I did for many years to many countries, you will realize that Indians are treated with disdain. Firstly by being asked to get a visa for every single country in the world that they wish to visit. Maybe HK, Singapore, thailand have changed of late. But me thinks that respect should be accorded to the average Indian and not to some amorphous entity. That respect will happen if Indians want to stay in India and not leave India by the millions inspite of said visas. That is what India should be working towards, after having got in hand the number of bums or the material for the bums which guarantee its security. By all accounts including the calculations of esteemed and knowledgeable people on this thread, such material is in hand.

So my respectful question to you is. "What are you unhappy about"? Remember, 12,000 bums did not get the average Russian any respect nor did it save the USSR from imploding.

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

Postby bala » 02 Aug 2007 09:52

Harish wrote:Basic question here: given the high capital costs of constructing reactors and buying fuel, will the resulting energy be affordable? Is there a cost-benefit analysis online for a nuclear power plant against a coal-fired / hydropower plant of comparable capacity? What would be the break-even point, beyond which a nuclear plant is more cost-effective than the other plant? Something like after 10 years of continuous operation?

In a country where a small flyover attracts a heavy toll, nuclear power isn't going to come cheap, given that you spend billions in hard cash to build a viable infrastructure. Most Indians can just barely afford power tariffs as they exist today. So how is this expensive energy deal supposed to help our growth?


Costs: think about the chula analogy that KGoan came up with. We will be burning less polluting stuff (carbon credits add up, though i dont know whether kyoto allows nuke for carbon credits). Also think about the graduating scientist from Indian univ, who need nuclear jobs manning not only indian ones but also IAEA inspector raj. also factor in Singha's 8+% GDP growth report from TOI for the next 20-30yrs and there is no other alternative but nuclear. Energy is going to cost, but considering GDP growth and fat paychecks, we have to take the benefits that accrue from the galloping energy consumption.

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Aug 2007 10:06

bala wrote:also factor in Singha's 8+% GDP growth report from TOI for the next 20-30yrs and there is no other alternative but nuclear. Energy is going to cost,


was my effort wasted? :)

If unkle hegemony is removed, we might even have alternatives

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 02 Aug 2007 11:53

People who worry about our (potential) inability to produce hundreds of weapons are no different than the cold war hawks, nonprolutullahs, and all the Stink Tanks around. Both fail to acknowledge the change of times.

MAD and huge arsenals were devised at a time of mainframes. A country thought only about their own (and their empire). An unacceptable damage was when all the major cities are made into rubble.

Wake up folks. We are in the internet age. Age of networks, global village and the whole buzz. Wouldn't a bum obliterating Shanghai be unacceptable damage, not only to China, but to most of the developed countries. So is many of other "business hubs". Hell, doesn't Bangalore, Kerala make the list?

Would any country, even Pakistan, would consider loosing one city as acceptable damage? The age for piling up weapons are gone, just like the age of piling up your money under the mattress.

And we already HAVE more than enough stuff to deter anyone other than the bird-head aliens in the movies.

For me, there is no difference between someone here who want more bums, and the Nonprolutullahs. Both are stuck in the 60s.

So, here is what I think:

1. We have enough bums, and enough material to make them.
2. No one is going to use them anyway. If that day comes, we will have much worse things to worry about.
3. Deal, no deal, hyde, jekyl, 123, 786 or whatnot, we will face the SAME treatment from the rest of the world if we test. So, better have the deal.

I would have power and progress for 10 years and then die as a loser in a nuke war, rather than live 20 years without and then "Win" a nuke war, and then suffer for another 20 of the effects of the war.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 02 Aug 2007 12:57

Well, the rhetoric level is going up, so the facts must be going down :).

Let me interject one observations at this stage.

If we look at just the 123 agreement, just the deal to the exclusion of everything else the US is doing, then this deal does indeed appear to be a dream come true for India.

However, if you look at t he additional moves it is making, especially when it has asked the NSG countries to REPLICATE its own conditions on India (something BC says renders the fuel supply gaurantee null and void), then this deal is simply the ground work for asking for more leverage over India.


-----------
N^3,
Swamy's assertion is not a shot in the dark, even given his colour ful past. US amby to India has indeed made negative comments on India's relationship with Iran. And the Wall Street Journal yesterday asked for the same thing, that it is not too much to ask of India to break its links with Iran. (Remember, WSJ is not the gasbag NYT).

So, the pressure on breaking links with Iran is not a figment of Swamy's imagination.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 02 Aug 2007 13:34

Well I'm least concerned about Weapons potential, because Time and again we seem to have done in that front right irrespective of the odds, I want this deal should contribute in some way and help the commerialization of FBR including the prospect of selling it to other countries. I'm concerned regarding the prospects of that.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Nuke Deal

Postby Prabu » 02 Aug 2007 14:16

A piece about subramaniyam swamy !

People of Tamilnadu (where he some how gets elected normally!) consider him as a 'joker' and not serious at all, though he is widely suspected to be a CIA agent.

But take the bottom line of swamy's blaber, if it suits Indian interests.

As a whole deal, as of now, it is perhaps NOT a bad deal to move on ,
but make sure to (await 123 release today) preserve our strategic rights, on reprocesing, Preserving FBR's technology and take own decision on Nuke testing , range of Agni 3* or Agni IV, OR ICBM's, and show the carrot of 127 fighter jets & helicopters now and if required show the middle finger to uncle later. (Quote defence minister's remarks "In India it is fair and transparant deals on Weapon purchases etc) Even limit the number of reactor & fuel porchases from US to the bear minimum and seek better ones from france or Russia ( without hyde act !)

But ultimately India should start behaving like a world power! Dont get intimided by words of idiots like David mulford. He is just doing his job for his pay masters.

Even in case of probable invation of Iran, (after a UN mandate ofcourse) show middle finger to US by enacting a ALL PARTY resoloution saying, ( very similar to hyde act ! or better than that if possible) our Indian Army's total participation in UN missions in invading other countries shall not be more than 0.1 % of the Indian army or some thing similar to that or even better we will not be a party to invade other countries, unless and otherwise, Indias supreme national interest is threatenend by the view of GOI and / or the parliment of India. Officailly declare that, will or wish of Indian people is against invading otehr countries , bla bla bla !

India today told US that Developed nation are responsible for climate change than developing nations ( a hardened stand as of today !)

Be bold , start behaving like a real world power !!

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

U.S.: address ‘next issue’

Postby Prabu » 02 Aug 2007 14:52


H.B.Krishna
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 29 Jun 2007 19:14

Bums and Respectability

Postby H.B.Krishna » 02 Aug 2007 15:29

We need tools, but more importantly an able handler of those tools. True Rus got lotsa bums, but in past decade there wasn't a spine to held the danda upright. See, Chi-Chee lizards may have much less bums compared to Rus, yet they are accorded with due respect. Sure, we need to have strategic number of bums (I am not good enough to tell the numbers), and hope that some day we would have good PM(s) and not Personal Massagers.

India is one Banana Republic that can manage to do well without politicians. We are like that onleee

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 15:52

Some points:

1. Dr. Kakodkar was part of the 123 negotiating team, and appears to have been satisfied. That's what I said: "we" fought the good fight, held the govt. to a standard of taking the scientists (at the top) into confidence, and the GOI appears to have negotiated hard and not backed down on critical points. So no sense now in listening to assorted Chickens Little who, I presume, have not read the text any more than we here have.

2. COTUS now faces an "up-or-down" vote. So they are trying all sorts of stunts to bully India and score election points. I don't see why India should respond to all this. The Ambassador Mullah Mullahford does keep his feet in his mouth, and he should be told quite firmly to keep his nose out of Indian foreign policy decisions, and that Ambasador to India is not, unfortunately, as powerful a post as, say, Ambassador to Pakistan, Panama or Grenada.

3. The pressure to kick Iran, again, should be met with the firm statement that Iran is a neighbor with whom we have had good relations, and we intend to maintain those relations. Whether we agree or disagree with individual actions by the Iranian government, will be decided by the GOI, thank u, and of course GOI shall be happy to consult with our dear friends on the other side of the world and take their concerns and advice into account most sincerely. End of statement.

There is nothing in the US-India Civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation Act about Iran, Iraq or Guatemala, as far as I know it, and all these mouthings of Congressppl are just India-baiting. Like English ninnies throwing jelly beans at Zaheer Khan.

On that point, it is good that Swamy etc. come out and caution the GOI from knuckling under to pressure.

Samuelji, I don't know about u, but I grew up watching my parents go hungry after the Americans tried pulling the strings attached to "PL480" food "aid", and India cut those strings rather than agree to hand over Kashmir to the Pakis. In those days India had a food shortage that was far worse than the power shortage. And India went to war 5 years after, to stop the American-funded Paki genocide in East Pakistan, and we faced down the American threats with the nuclear aircraft carrier Task Force Enterprise threatening to nuke us all.

So thanks, but I don't need advice on the balance between luxuries and freedom. A nuclear deterrent is very much needed. It is being built, and this Agreement does not hinder that.

Recent experience shows that today's GOI is no less tough than the one then, when it comes to choosing independence over Foreign Aid.

As for choice between nuke power and other power, I am for renewable energy, but have to admit that a rapid increase in baseload, reliable power for industry HAS to come from nuclear energy, and this needs to be done with private-sector efficiency, safety, security and transparency. Other things can serve many other needs. As ppl point out, the need of the times is not to test more bums, but to bring power to the people.

If ever we have to test bums, I am sure the GOI then will do what every GOI has done: they will do what is essential for national security, and explain to the world why it had to be done. If certain quarters try stupid bullying then, it may work, or it may not work. In 1974 they hurt India, but that did not stop us. In 1998 they tried their arrogance (Helms/Thurmond 1998: "this Indian government has shot itself in the foot and quite probably in the head") but the WHOTUS, if not the COTUS, or the Foggy Bottoms, quickly realized that the Cheneys they were stepping on were their own.

Research on advances in nuclear energy can be done in protected National Labs, far away from the civilian sector. Again, this is the "separation" that far too many Indians (at least at BRF) seem unable to grasp.

You and I won't get to see everything that goes on at, say, Sandia or Los Alamos or Phillips Labs. Or wherever else that they don't even advertise. Likewise research in the "protected" (as opposed to "safeguarded" ) sector will remain protected, and not contaminated with foreign-origin fuel which will come with all the foreign inspectors etc.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 02 Aug 2007 16:19, edited 1 time in total.

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Postby ksmahesh » 02 Aug 2007 16:11

Thanks N^3 very gud post.

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

Postby vsudhir » 02 Aug 2007 16:26

ksmahesh wrote:Thanks N^3 very gud post.


Agreed.

Tks for the perspective.

Added later: And tks for using English as opposed to pinglish. The latter is/was funny in parts but becomes jarring mighty fast. IMVHO, of course.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35848
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 16:29

A small note: AK was in the travel team, but not in the discussion. I think he was just there for ready reference on disputes and other things. Good decision from negotiating point of view, where we don't want our 800 pounder to be exposed with parliamentarian BS.

Yes.. swamy is all cr@pper and he comes to take his take after mostly things are done and all options are viewed. He picks up extreme positions and tries to blast it up, when no one is bothered or in the time window to hear him crap.

Iran may be what it is, and not likable at all.. that is fine with us, but what is not fine is writing into Indo-US nuclear deal, and that Iran can be easily handled with another deal we can take up altogether different. America is trying to get a handle by keeping Iran name. India should just ignore and keep Iran on a view that is reflected by our strategic requirements. We don't need to lick neither a#se (america's or iran's).

Still we need to know what is the damn new reprocessing facility for? why can't we do the reprocessing in already existing facility that would be put into safeguards anyway. What is the mileage here for them(NPA, IAEA, Khan)?

Any words that talks in generality.. without any "civilian prefix" can put our strategic program into a bigger issue later. Like "all future FBRs"., is too generic statement.

We should not have the "carrots" documented into the deal. Those are specific to our defence requirements. If defence says, it does not need the super hornets or lockheeds, then so be it.

India should join GNEP as a donor and not to be signatory being the receiver.

India should ensure "America can not dictate on its sanctions laws with other NSG countries" at a future date., {meaning do not document that}. Of course Oz et al chelas and poodles will just blindly do what the ~Khans do., so why give it in writing?

India should agree to separation plan only on materials and facilities. NOT on MEN and IP. This is very very important that we need to read in between the texts. [in the sense, AK et al could still work for our mil programs].


/2c

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5215
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Aug 2007 16:52

enqyoob wrote:There is nothing in the US-India Civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation Act about Iran, Iraq or Guatemala, as far as I know it, and all these mouthings of Congressppl are just India-baiting. Like English ninnies throwing jelly beans at Zaheer Khan.


From Hyde:

(4) Secure India's full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.


(G) A description and assessment of the specific measures that India has taken to fully and actively participate in United States and international efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 17:38

Shaurya:
Thanks for quoting what I wrote. India did not sign the Hyde Act or the Jekyll Act.

I should have specified when I wrote "US-India Civilian...Act". I meant what US and INDIA have agreed to, not what the US Congress WISHED for the US to get India to agree to. My mistake - I thought this was the Bh... Rakshak forum???

This distinction between what the Hyde Act told the GOTUS to do, and what India agreed to do, has been discussed to death, so I thought that was obvious.

Last I checked, India goes by laws passed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, not in the COTUS. The agreement signed by Indian reps is the 123 agreement with the GOTUS, not anything in the US Congress. If you show me those clauses in the text of the 123 agreement (which should come out later today) I would be real concerned - that the Indian Parliament will reject it.

Otherwise, this is all jellybeans on the pitch, intended to get ppl to jump up and down and maybe throw a few beamers, and maybe get sympathy from racist /poodle Match Referees. 8)

If I start quoting all the mouthings of Senators and Congressppl and assorted pompous musharrafs all over, we can keep jumping up and down forever. But we are not Pakistan, so hopefully none of that makes a naya paisa's worth of difference.

Also, note: the Hyde Act is just an Act. It can be changed by COTUS any time they feel so inclined. 5 years from now, if US companies complain that the Hyde Act is killing their competitive ability to win contracts in India, we may see a Jekyll Act passed with no fanfare at all.

This is why I said to check into the history of the Snail Darter. Do so please, and you'll see something very interesting about how COTUS works.

The Holies had it right. All is Maya. Nothing is permanent. Bhavitavyam Bhavet Eva. But it is also true that those who try hard, dare and persist, get to decide what is Bhavitavyam.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6146
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 02 Aug 2007 17:51

enqyoob wrote:
In 1998 they tried their arrogance (Helms/Thurmond 1998: "this Indian government has shot itself in the foot and quite probably in the head") but the WHOTUS, if not the COTUS, or the Foggy Bottoms, quickly realized that the Cheneys they were stepping on were their own.



This point is bandied around with impunity. But the fact of the matter is that India climbed down might big. A few fire crackets don't make a threatning arsenal. And Jaswant Singh bent down on his knees and begged forgiveness from "my friend Strobe", someone far junior in rank. So, yes, India did definetly show b@lls by testing, but has there been any follow up since then? Also, on sanctions. Recall, US imposed sanctions on both India and TSP. And after 9/11, they revoked sanctions on 'all-lie' TSP and then of course on India (equal equal onlee). Just skim through one of Tom Friedman's (and I agree he is not the Gospel of truth or anything, but he is a mouthpiece of the US govt and has excellent contacts) book "Lexus and Olive Tree" on his references to India, and he clearly mentions that India after acting macho for a few seconds climned down.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6146
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 02 Aug 2007 17:55

Can one of the erudte pro-'deal' folks refute BC's contentious points in Deccan Chronicle op-ed?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5215
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Aug 2007 17:57

enqyoob wrote:Shaurya:
Thanks for quoting what I wrote. India did not sign the Hyde Act or the Jekyll Act.

Last I checked, India goes by laws passed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, not in the COTUS. The agreement signed by India is the 123 agreement with the GOTUS, not anything in the US Congress. If you show me those clauses in the text of the 123 agreement (which should come out later today) I would be real concerned. Otherwise, this is all jellybeans on the pitch.
Thanks for changing your post.
The last time, I checked, the GoI was not coming to the LS or RS (not required) for an up and down vote of this agreement on the basis of no party whips and a suspension of the disqualification act. Let that happen and a free vote of our soooo corrupt MP's happen - we will know, if the Indian nation is still stuck on, what you call as H&D, or is desperate enough for some bijlee.

Until, the free will of the people is not exercised, this debate shall continue.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 18:33

??? I did not change my post. India did not sign the Hyde Act or the Jekyll Act. Where is the confusion on this point, please?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 19:39

This game is not over. The US is still playing a behind the scene game - just as it did with the Hyde Act:

Now, the next issue is: the Government of India will be dealing with the International Atomic Energy Agency to reach an agreement and with the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Those are the two next steps. And then, only after those steps have been completed, will we submit the agreement to our Congress


This goes against what India had wanted: US approval in its Congress, then IAEA and then NSG.

This deal has some value. The question is what is India giving up. Iran is not an issue, it is a democratic state like the US instructing another state what to do. Also, the fact that various entities within the US are repeating this (Iran stuff) over a long period of time shows the flaws in the Indian system. Either India wants to be a 'power' and behave as such, or, sit on the side line - which is OK too.

However, that this deal will come to the rescue of India is only half the truth. The other half - which is a reality - is that India has not process in place to correct what is wrong today. So, projections, even with this deal, will be off by a cool 25-50%. Villages in India will nto be lit even in 2050.

On the flip side, IF attitudes and mentalities can be changed for the better India can light all villages without this deal. India has an underground economy that is nearly as large, if not larger than the over-ground economy. Dealin with Indian ills can benefit India. So, the qeustion is if the deal is worth what India is giving up?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 19:43

Posting in full teh URL Prabhu posted above:

U.S.: address ‘next issue’

[quote]
P. S. Suryanarayana

Bush Administration to “advocate strongly for the agreementâ€

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5215
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Aug 2007 19:43

enqyoob wrote:??? I did not change my post. India did not sign the Hyde Act or the Jekyll Act. Where is the confusion on this point, please?
I have quoted your original post, above...

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6146
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 02 Aug 2007 19:49

Nrao:

For me, if all other interests of India are met, the Iran thingy is something I am willing to soft peddle on. I am not saying we dump Iran because Unkil says so, but we should be willing to evaluate our relationship with Iran through a cost benefit analysis. If these testing, re-processing issues can be worked in our favor and in return we soft peddle on Iran, it isn't such a big deal, perhaps India can throw in US's dealing with TSP too as a barter. Also, on a govt to govt level, I am sure India's relationship with Iran is sound, but on personal experience, I have found that Iranian elites in US exhibit the Pakijabi-type TFTA attitude and are every bit as contemptuous of us SDREs.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 19:49

And how have I changed it? Still looks the same to me.... :?: :?: hello???

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 20:03

CRS,

Soft peddling on Iran is fine.

Soft peddling on Siachen, LoC, Kashmir, meeting with "democracies" of the region, Nepal, SL, 1000 ship navy, opening trade "barriers", WTO? Are these all a coincidence?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5215
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Aug 2007 20:06

enqyoob wrote:And how have I changed it? Still looks the same to me.... :?: :?: hello???
The lines starting with, "I should have checked" were added later and were not there, when i relpied.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35848
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2007 20:09

Soft peddling should be only on account of Iran selling oil at a good price for us. Else f them!~.. and it should happen within a specified time frame.

And.. BARC should come fast on a aggressive design for tapping the huge Uranium from sea water. ..

PS: just got an idea..
if strategic naval flotilla could produce 1KG/yr of uranium from sea water installed in each ship should satisfy the ship requirements. cool thinking eh~. </self thalia>
Last edited by SaiK on 02 Aug 2007 20:24, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 02 Aug 2007 20:20

This goes against what India had wanted: US approval in its Congress, then IAEA and then NSG.


A question... if India gets an IAEA INFCIRC, then NSG exemption, does it really need the US Senate to sign off on the 123?

Once that NSG waiver is granted, France, Russia, Canada etc will be at the door...

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6146
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 02 Aug 2007 20:24

NRao wrote:CRS,

Soft peddling on Iran is fine.

Soft peddling on Siachen, LoC, Kashmir, meeting with "democracies" of the region, Nepal, SL, 1000 ship navy, opening trade "barriers", WTO? Are these all a coincidence?


Absolutely. I do not trust MMS one iota on all of the above issues. And I still maintain that this 'deal' has a lot to with those issues and predicated on something MMS has promised. Agian, recall Uneven's statement to WP where he said this 'deal' will allow India to be flexible on Kashmir.

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Aug 2007 20:25

I think it is just modality that US will seek approval in Congress after IAEA and NSG acceptance. It just reduces their work/headache. Once IAEA and NSG pass this through then Congress will be presented with a fait accomplii...sign or perish...varna our business interests will lose out. Gerard has caught on to this.
Last edited by Raju on 02 Aug 2007 20:27, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 20:26

Gerard wrote:
This goes against what India had wanted: US approval in its Congress, then IAEA and then NSG.


A question... if India gets an IAEA INFCIRC, then NSG exemption, does it really need the US Senate to sign off on the 123?

Once that NSG waiver is granted, France, Russia, Canada etc will be at the door...


Well, FR, RU, CD are all taking their cues from the US. SO, IF the NSG provides something that the US does not like, the US will then dropp the 123 - no agreement. So, the 123 is a template, but one held as hostage unless the IAEA and NSG follow the US.

Recall that AK has strated talks with the IAEA and then he totally backed out. I was told that was the reason. Who knows.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2007 20:39

Raju wrote:I think it is just modality that US will seek approval in Congress after IAEA and NSG acceptance. It just reduces their work/headache. Once IAEA and NSG pass this through then Congress will be presented with a fait accomplii...sign or perish...varna our business interests will lose out. Gerard has caught on to this.


This thinking seems to relegate GNEP to a lower rung. In the GNEP model all these nations need to work together and the benefits of GNEP are a lot more than singly dealing with India. There are two more issues: IAEA plays a huge role with GNEP and then India still plans of her own model.

So, I feel that all these nations will line up, but only with US blessing.

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Aug 2007 20:46

I don't know much about GNEP, but today China has cleverly started a border row again. Theoritically unkle could do a bit of piggybacking on Chinese objections. That is the only thing in NSG horizon as of now.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 21:07

AllahoAkbar! Ppl here are pretty confused. Shaurya, I did not CHANGE my post. When I saw that you were confused about what is in the 123 agreement, I tried to explain that the Civilian Nuclear Energy agreement BETWEEN INDIA AND THE US has nothing about Iran etc. etc.

It may be useful to get clear what is what here. From Wikipedia:



See circa Page 60:

Sec 123. Cooperation With Other Nations–No cooperation with any nation or regional defense
organization pursuant to sections 53, 54a, 57, 64, 82, 91, 103, 104, or 144 shall be undertaken until–
a. the Commission or, in the case of those agreements for cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection
91c. or 144b. which are to be implemented by the Department of Defense, the Department of Defense has
submitted to the President the proposed agreement for cooperation, together with its recommendations thereon,
which proposed agreement shall include (1) the terms, conditions, duration, nature, and scope of the
cooperation; (2) a guaranty by the cooperating party that security safeguards and standards as set forth in the
agreement for cooperation will be maintained; (3) except in the case of those agreements for cooperation
arranged pursuant to subsection 91c., a guaranty by the cooperating party that any material to be transferred
pursuant to such agreement will not be used for atomic weapons, or for research on or development of atomic
weapons or for any other military purpose; and (4) a guaranty by the cooperating party that any material or any
Restricted Data to be transferred pursuant to the agreement for cooperation will not be transferred to
unauthorized persons or beyond the jurisdiction of the cooperating party, except as specified in the agreement
for cooperation;
b. the President has approved and authorized the execution of the proposed agreement for cooperation,
and has made a determination in writing that the performance of the proposed agreement will promote and will
not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security;
c. the proposed agreement for cooperation, together with the approval and the determination of the
President, has been submitted to the Joint committee and a period of thirty days has elapsed while congress is
in session (in computing such thirty days, there shall be excluded the days on which either House is not in
session because of an adjournment of more than three days): Provided, however, That the Joint Committee,
after having received such agreement for cooperation, may by resolution in writing waive the conditions of all
or any portion of such thirty-day period; and
d. The proposed agreement for cooperation together with the approval and determination of the President,
if arranged pursuant to subsection 91c; 144b., or 144c., or if entailing implementation of sections 53, 54a, 103
or 104 in relation to a reactor that may be capable of producing more than five thermal megawatts or special
nuclear material for use in connection therewith, has been submitted to the Congress and referred to the Joint
Committee and a period of sixty days has elapsed while congress is in session (in computing such sixty days,
there shall be excluded the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than three days), but any such proposed agreement for cooperation shall not become effective if during such
sixty-day period the congress passes a concurrent resolution stating in substance that it does not favor the
proposed agreement for cooperation: Provided, That prior to the elapse of the first thirty days of any such sixtyday
period the Joint committee shall submit a report to the Congress of its views and recommendations
respecting the proposed agreement and an accompanying proposed concurrent resolution stating in substance
that the Congress favors, or does not favor, as the case may be, the proposed agreement for cooperation. Any
such concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case
of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) within
twenty-five days and shall be voted on within five calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise
determine.


Nows there is an additional caveat:

In the case of those agreements for cooperation
arranged pursuant to subsection 91c., 144b., 144c., or 144d.,114 any
proposed agreement for cooperation shall be submitted to the President by
the Secretary of Energy or, in the case of those agreements for
cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection 91c., or 144b., which are to
be implemented by the Department of Defense, by the Secretary of
Defense:
b. the President has submitted text of the proposed agreement for
cooperation, except an agreement arranged pursuant to section 91c.,
144b., 144c., or 144d. of section 144,115 together with the accompanying
unclassified Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement, to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the President has
consulted with such Committees for a period of not less than thirty days
of continuous session (as defined in section 130g. of this Act) concerning
the consistency of the terms of the proposed agreement with all the
requirements of this Act, and116 the President has approved and authorized
the execution of the proposed agreement for cooperation and has made a
determination in writing that the performance of the proposed agreement
will promote and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common
defense and security;
Submittal to
congressional
committees.
c. the proposed agreement for cooperation (if not an agreement subject
to subsection d.), together with the approval and determination of the
President, has been submitted to the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations.


..President pursuant to subsection a. from any requirement contained in that
subsection shall not become effective unless the Congress adopts, and
there is enacted, a joint resolution stating that the Congress does favor
such agreement.119 During the sixty-day period the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate shall each hold hearings on the proposed
agreement for cooperation and submit a report to their respective bodies
recommending whether it should be approved or disapproved.120 Any
such proposed agreement for cooperation shall be considered pursuant to
the procedures set forth in section 130i. of this Act.121
42 USC 2121.
42 USC 2164.
Agency views to
Congressional
Committees.
Following submission of a proposed agreement for cooperation
(except an agreement for cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection
91c., 144b., 144c., or 144d.) to the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations
of the Senate, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of
State, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense shall,
upon the request of either of those committees, promptly furnish to those
committees their views as to whether the safeguards and other controls
contained therein provide an adequate framework to ensure that any
export as contemplated by such agreement will not be inimical to or
constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security.

If, after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of
1978, the Congress fails to disapprove a proposed agreement for
cooperation which exempts the recipient nation from the requirement set
[b]such failure to act shall constitute a failure
to adopt a resolution of disapproval
[/b]pursuant to subsection 128b.(3) for
purposes of the Commission’s consideration of applications and requests
under section 126a.(2) and there shall be no congressional review
pursuant to section 128 of any subsequent license or authorization with
respect to that state until the first such license or authorization which is
issued after twelve months from the elapse of the sixty-day period in
which the agreement for cooperation in question is reviewed by the
Congress.122



That last part says:
Speak now or shut up onlee


so the pressure is on Congress. The "when first license comes up for review" is the Snail Darter clause - it will get slipped through as some part of an all-or-nothing Social Security or Troop Salary Authorization Bill that no Congress dares shoot down.

This was how the Snail Darter was defeated and the Tennessee Valley megadam project approved.

Also, for purposes of clarifikashun, the Hyde Act is an act APPROVING the intent to pursue a 123 agreement with India. It is NOT the US-India Peaceful etc. agreement itself.

IOW, the Hyde Act is the equivalent of
Here are the car keys

as opposed to
Permission to feign sudden loss of power in car at suitable remote location, leading to sudden thirst and remembrance of 6-pack in trunk.


Many stringent conditions will be spoken upon granting permission to take the keys, most of which are irrelevant to actually finding way into driver's seat and getting garage door opened.

Failure to stop the car by Daddy-O means, "next review is when the phone call comes in about someone being pregnant".

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5215
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Aug 2007 22:31

N: I will respond later too difficult to type from this device I am using while driving!

H.B.Krishna
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 29 Jun 2007 19:14

Chicom Timers

Postby H.B.Krishna » 02 Aug 2007 22:32

Arunachal, Sikkim....This Chicom,s timing must be noted (No wonder our ancestors believed in Lizards....). One single vote in NSG gotta be a real problem for us. Lizard is trying to catch 10 with a sing swing of tongue :!:

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

Postby nkumar » 02 Aug 2007 22:49

123 Agreement to curb India's power

The Indo-US dialogue on 123 Agreement has been conducted with utmost secrecy, the way one deals with an extremely sensitive subject. One may recall that despite best efforts of the US and its allies India conducted Pokharan-II test in 1998. The US pounced on India with sanctions but, India successfully withstood it. Onward journey of Indo-US relations is dotted with instances of trying to strengthen grip over indigenous three stage nuclear programme.

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush met in July 18, 2005 in USA, the draft of the agreement was unknown to Manmohan Singh and his team of scientists. It was not possible to grasp the contents in its entirety for many reasons.

First, the conditionalities of Hyde Act 2006 made the document complex. Second, the number of International Acts including 35 Nation IAEA Board, 45 States Nuclear Supply Group and US Congressional approval conditionality. Above all, regular inspections of our nuclear reactors by IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

The US has always been desirous of capping India's strategic nuclear weapon capacity, whereas India's threat-perception has been increasing. China had no such limitations and clandestinely made regular nuclear supplies to Pakistan, to make Pakistan a superior nuclear-power than India. The US has specially targeted Cirus research reactor and wanted to close it or open it to international inspections. There are numerous trappings in the 123 document. Whatever little information is available, is due to leak from the Indian Government to certain media persons. That is why the entire nuclear scientific community opposed it and is opposing it.

Not even the BJP is challenging the deal, the Left, too, is not happy with the so called 123 Agreement - because of non-transparency. Even after repeated demands, the requisite documents have not been made public. It is partially known to the UPA Government loyalists in bits and pieces. Even though the Cabinet has given the go ahead the Government isn't revealing the contents of the Agreement. The UPA has to issue a statement on the Agreement in the Parliament on August 10. Till date, it have not taken into confidence the political parties

Verbal assurances, while withholding the document, is a meaningless exercise. It is apprehended that Indo-US 123 Agreement will be forced through the Parliament. There will be opposition and a walk out may give a the UPA what it needs. Prime Minister has already come up with a new theory that economic development is of utmost importance, meaning the security threat to the country is negotiable.

During debates in the media and the Parliament some myths have been created. First, the Congress said that former Prime Minister AB Vajpayee had mentioned in his 1998 speech that no more nuclear tests are required and India will practice voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests. During Pokharan-II days it was the most sensitive subject. A statement containing diplomatic message is one thing but, a legal bindings of an agreement is all together different.

Second, India's demand for energy is increasing, and that the deal would meet the increasing energy demands. The fact is that at the most stipulated import of nuclear reactors for civil energy can meet the demand of 15,000 MW, which would not be even 10 per cent of the country's requirements when energy starts flowing from the reactors. And it is not cost effective. The deal seems to be more propelled by commercial considerations of the US. The nuclear business in the US is estimated at $ 100 billions. Surprisingly the US in its own arena is giving emphasis to coal based energy. In Indian conditions highly under-tapped hydroelectric power generation can play wonders.

The third, the deal will end India's isolation. Whatever may be final revelation of the 123 Agreement, experts believe that it will not lift the blanket of nuclear technology embargo against India. Also, the five nuclear countries will not accept India as an equal and legitimate nuclear power. This is also said that nuclear energy will reduce India's dependence on oil energy. The fact, however, is that it will not cut India's oil imports, for India does not use oil to generate electricity.

Joseph R Biden's statement is candid enough regarding the US' offer. Biden a democrat is on US Senate's Foreign Relation Committee. He praised the deal, for the US has succeeded in limiting the size and sophistication of India's "nuclear programme and nuclear power programme." This seems to be basic objective and concern of the US whatever may be the diplomatic jugglery.


Another thing to be noted is that if PRC only makes token noises, then it obviously means that the deal is not good for India. So far we have not seen any strong statement from PRC against the deal, perhaps they are also waiting for the text like us.

Also it seems that the wording of the deal is going to create confusion later on. What is most worrying is MMS's actions and words gives a hint of Nehru's day dreaming. And if the deal is really good, then why was the text not released before making vague statements. Despite all positive things said about the deal it seems to me that all is not well with the deal. I wish to be proven wrong later.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Aug 2007 23:07

Sad to say, I was able to guess where that was from, b4 I clicked the link. This Din Nath Mishra is understudy to His Holiest Chief Scientist Dr. Puneesh Taneja of ISRO, I presume?

(Ducking for cover now.. 8) )

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 02 Aug 2007 23:09

nkumar wrote:123 Agreement to curb India's power

. China had no such limitations and clandestinely made regular nuclear supplies to Pakistan, to make Pakistan a superior nuclear-power than India.


What is most worrying is MMS's actions and words gives a hint of Nehru's day dreaming.


Au contraire Nkumar, what is most worrying is that the writer of the article that you have posted Mr. Dina Nath Mishra, BJP MP from Uttar Pradesh is dhimmified to such an extent that he believes that Pakistan is a superior nuclear power than India. With stalwarts such as Mr. Mishra with such low self esteem representing India's nationalist party the contrast with MMS and his confidence in negotiating with the sole superpower could not be more blatant. Folks such as Mr. Mishra are frankly digging their own grave in terms of public perception by stooping to such inaccuracies and exposing their own insecurities.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 02 Aug 2007 23:13

NDTV is claiming that they have exclusive details on deal. Per NDTV, the text will be available on respective govt website at Friday 10.00 am IST.

Per NDTV, there are about 7-8 barriers before the US can invoke 'right of return' in case of India nuke test. The 'right of return' is NOT mandatory but US president can invoke it.

Couple of quotes from NDTV about the supposed barriers

-If Pakis or lizard test then India can test (my comment: don't know if it true or is encoded in test)
-Compensation package
-Can't disturb projects under construction
-Fuel allowed from other countries
-Strategic reserve
-No mention of N testing in agreement
-No legal commitment by India to never test again


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests