Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

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

Postby ldev » 18 Aug 2007 18:18

enqyoob wrote:Interesting benchmark:

China's 123 agreement was agreed way back in 1985, Clinton finally signed off in 1997, the agreement was finalized in January 1998, China tested again in May 1998 through TSP...

... but the first nuclear plant under this has STARTED construction yesterday (August 2007).

NINE and a half years to START construction. In CHINA...


For the BJP types who are constantly harping about how India has got an unfavourable deal vis a vis China and that domestic US law does not apply to China while it does to India, the timeline that you have outlined is an object lesson.

The China agreement was part of the packge of carrots extended to China for aligning with the West against the Soviets. By the late 1980s, the Soviets were a waning force, bogged down in Afghanistan etc. So COTUS was in no hurry to ratify. Also whether GOTUS/COTUS admit it or not, Chinese proliferation was a concern. And then Tiananmen happened in 1989 which delayed ratification by a few more years. By the time western human rights feathers had been soothed over Tiananmen, Clinton the sleazeball was in office and willing to sell his soul for some Chinese money. I could be wrong here but I think the same negative rule of bills being considered as passed unless opposed by some 2/3 or some such majority of Congress happened here. But inspite of that the Chinese had to get a pass mark on their non proliferation record via a certificate to Congress. That did not happen until sometime in 2002/2003.

So folks who think that "domestic US law" does not apply to China dont know which end they are talking from. It does not matter that there is a clause that "domestic US law" does not apply in the Chinese agreement. Ever since 1985, US interests have always dictated the pace of implementation of that agreement.

In comparison, India is on a fast track. Because US India interests have converged on a large number of issues - Pakistan notwithstanding. Unlike US Chinese interests which have diverged ever since that agreement was signed.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 18 Aug 2007 18:45

ldev wrote:the BJP types
Please get off your intellectual high horse here, and stop labelling people with labels that you cook up to bash the party you seem to hate the most. I have noticed this in many of your posts.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 18 Aug 2007 18:56

Hmm.. From now on I am going to keep a count how many time "BJP Types" will be chanted by the "CONgros(s) Types" ? in their eagerness.. Clearly the "UNPA Types" regardless of the "Commie Types" are being given a pass.. :((

I can very well throw in a few opinions if we can have a separate thread regarding internal politics of India wrt. Nuclear Deal, anybody up for it ?

Failing which, I'll have a nothing less than a good laugh ... and avoid the cleverly disguised flame baits. :oops:

PS: I am not against the deal Per se, which by the way isn't even in the final stage.. but the "spin" on this thread is another story...

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

Postby vsudhir » 18 Aug 2007 19:03

PS: I am not against the deal Per se, which by the way isn't even in the final stage.. but the "spin" on this thread is another story...


Well articulated.

Makes me wonder why the itch to assault the intelligence, integrity, sanity, etc etc of deal-sceptics by the desperately pro-deal types.

A politics thread won't last 2 weeks, IMVVHO. Will meet the same fate as the erstwhile religion thread. Or perhaps not. Worth a try, certainly.

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

Postby ldev » 18 Aug 2007 19:07

rocky wrote:
ldev wrote:the BJP types
Please get off your intellectual high horse here, and stop labelling people with labels that you cook up to bash the party you seem to hate the most. I have noticed this in many of your posts.


I suppose it is OK to sit on "your" high horse while the PM of India is called a traitor and worse and there are calls for him to be killed. Silence reigns then.

FWIW's the BJP had my admiration from about 1997 till they lost the election in 2004 at which point of time, their behaviour became petty and continues to be petty. From 1997 onwards in no small measure due to my admiration for ABV who I happened to meet personally when he was in the opposition. Now, without his leadership, they have reverted true to form to what they were in their long days in the wilderness.
Last edited by ldev on 18 Aug 2007 19:10, edited 1 time in total.

Raju

Postby Raju » 18 Aug 2007 19:08

there is no politics, left knows very well that it will not even win 1/4th the number of seats they won in last election. In W. Bengal they will lose 1/4th of the past total, and in Kerala they will regain less than 5 seats if snap poll is held now. And they know that.

MMS can call their bluff right now. All their hormones are on loan from China.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 18 Aug 2007 19:13

Why is Congress/MMS refusing to discuss this topic in parliament?


With the people calling for a bullet in the head of the PM? The high point of the Parliamentary intelligentsia is supposedly Arun Shourie.. :roll:

The Constitution provides for a certain way to get things done, and that's what is being done, as far as I can tell.

Raju

Postby Raju » 18 Aug 2007 19:19

>>Why is Congress/MMS refusing to discuss this topic in parliament?

there is no point, with the current state of our parliament. there will be heated debates and everyone will point out faults in the deal. Communists will compare between China and say that they looked after social responsibilities first and then signed deals with capitalist US.

SO that is clearcut, India will perpetually be looking after social responsibilities.

THE BIG QUESTION IS WHY LEFT WAITED FOR SO LONG TO THROW SPANNER IN THE WORKS ?

BJP will not contribute fruitfully in any discussion, they have just lost the plot as far as being a constructive opposition is concerned.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6075
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 18 Aug 2007 19:19

ldev wrote:In comparison, India is on a fast track. Because US India interests have converged on a large number of issues - Pakistan notwithstanding. Unlike US Chinese interests which have diverged ever since that agreement was signed.


This is called casual spinning away to avoid an embarassing fact. Pakistan notwithstanding? TSP is like malignant tumor inflcting India, and USA feeds that tumor, and you take comfort that "US India interests have converged on a large number of issues". Like what? That both India and USA agree that the moon must remain de-militarized? Osama Bin Ladin is a bad guy according to both USA and India?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 18 Aug 2007 19:21

Those who think this deal should be scrapped, should please tell us why, without causing us to :rotfl: :rotfl:

The trouble is that in a gazillion posts and press articles and long-winded Lok Sabha speeches and calls for bullets in the PM's head, there has not been a single valid reason given. There HAVE been hajaaaar "reasons" given, but all have proved to be worth about one post of examination at most.

I'll start listing the objections that have already bitten the dust:

1. "China got a better deal than India". False.
2. "India has lost the freedom to test nukes because of this deal". False

... the rest were just even worse. Someone may have the patience to go back and list them all.

The problem I have with the BJP leadership is this:

If you keep lying to us, eventually we will conclude that you are liars.


And they have gone way past the point of no return.

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

Postby Rye » 18 Aug 2007 19:32

I am not sure what is being referred to as "spin of the pro-deal people".

The facts and numbers have all been posted, but people keep repeating the same questions and concerns over and over again.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6075
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 18 Aug 2007 19:33


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

Postby ldev » 18 Aug 2007 19:35

CRamS wrote:This is called casual spinning away to avoid an embarassing fact. Pakistan notwithstanding? TSP is like malignant tumor inflcting India, and USA feeds that tumor, and you take comfort that "US India interests have converged on a large number of issues". Like what? That both India and USA agree that the moon must remain de-militarized? Osama Bin Ladin is a bad guy according to both USA and India?


It is not an embarassing fact. It is a very real fact. But a combination of circumstances i.e. US policy inertia, clever Pakistani aligning itself with the larger ummah, historical Indian lack of strength which should cause domestic US concern regarding India's security concerns, long term suspicion in the US regarding India's decades old policy of non alignment etc, continue to ensure that the US and India do not agree on Pakistan. But the momentum is on India's side and IMO the 123 agreement as crafted will help to build up that momentum further via increasing US corporate stakes in a strong and stable India as well as an increase in inherent Indian economic strength. A tipping point will come, how soon, depends on how much India makes of this opening.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7037
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 18 Aug 2007 19:42

I am worried that this thread will become discussion of domestic politics. However, this 123 is currently at the door of the domestic politics and I think we should not hesitate to discuss.

enqyoob wrote:Muppalla: The Opposition plays a very useful role in the Indian system. They are our answer to the Ed Malarkeys and Dan Burtons and Barbara Boxers. So it would be counterproductive to take them along in negotiations.

I do not think that opposition in India is same as in US. In US the members vote based on their own constituents and the lobbies they belong to. In India it is always whatever the party line irrespective of their wish. Hence the US style approach to issues in Indian context does not work.

In coalition politics the ruling establishment has to be more than usual carefulness. Congress party has this experience when they were under PVNR. They were successful in making the U turn in economic reforms. MMS has seen the behavior of Left during that time. He and his party can easily predict that left will never support them on this issue. They just do not have backup plan.

enqyoob wrote:From all I have seen, the BJP top netaship (all 0.75 of them) have been very much in the loop from the beginning, behind the scenes. The campaign to get the Bills through COTUS were very much bipartisan desi (forget the FOIL types who were always anti-India on everything).

MMS should have made it front-end if he has realistic goal rather than having them in the backroom. His approach was to have their support and when it is all said and done to take the credit that he achieved moon that the "BJP types" couldn't achieve. Again, he should be extremely careful especially his government is completely in the hands of FOIL types. Situation demands a special approach and he did not have any political strategy except of whining about unknown "death havans"

enqyoob wrote:It was only after the deal was safely sailing through COTUS that the BJP started looking for political stuntmanship points, and came out with a stunning series of idiotic "white papers" and other garbage, all of which seem to have been authored by people with absolutely no vision or thought process.


Now if 123 is not pursued, every one is finding the fault with BJP. This government and 123 deal is not dependent on BJP for whatever they talk. There was no effort by the government to keep them in the accountability loop from the start. That is the disaster of this ruling disposition. BJP was always an untouchable but suddenly they want BJPs help because they know they are surrounded by FOILs. That is the attitude of this government and MMS. Due to their own making they are frustrated and talk about non-existent "havans of death".


enqyoob wrote:The result is that today the BJP finds itself utterly marginalized and reduced to calling the PM names, and making stupid death threats.


This is outside the context of this thread. I wouldn't like to answer on this form. We can discuss this on India Forum. Regarding death threats, this is absolute drivel thrown out by the Prime Minister. Who will care if MMS is dead or alive? He is a puppet in the hands of real power that that is Sonia Gandhi. Their fight is not with MMS and I guess that is at least obvious.

enqyoob wrote:THIS is going to impress the Indian electorate? I think if MMS went to the nation for elections in the wake of this, the Congress might return with a Constituent Assembly. The BJP candidates will enrich the Election Commission by forfeiting their deposits on an unprecedented scale.


I wish and pray that what you are saying is true. If Indian electorate can vote based on 123 deal, GDP growth then we would have never seen Left in the power. The possibility of vote catching regarding 123 will only be negative votes. If a party says, that congress is selling India's honor by making India dependent on US there is a possibility that congress will lose votes. I will bet that no party in India can gain positive votes out of 123.

enqyoob wrote:This is the political tragedy. Instead of doing their homework and demanding a coherent energy and security policy from the government, the BJP went to the role of being gnats on a buffalo's tail. They could have been the crows sitting on the buffalo's back and caw-cawing about energy policy and security policy instead.


Why blame just BJP and the BJP types?

enqyoob wrote:The LEFT has always been the snakes in the grass. Nothing new there.


But the greats like congress and MMS decided to sleep with these snakes. They thought that it will be fashion to call secular coalition.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 18 Aug 2007 19:46

enqyoob wrote:The Constitution provides for a certain way to get things done, and that's what is being done, as far as I can tell.


Does that mean, the people have to underwrite or lets say accede to everything the Govt. sign's up to.. anything and everything ["Arunachal to China.. or Open Borders with Paki's"] just because they have the numbers..

Instead of focusing more on how the "Spirit" of the Constitution is being subverted on what are ~accepted as Important matters.

PS: You can gladly call this a moralistic whine...But I can see such things propping up time and again, unless this provision isn't plugged..

Years down the line, if things break down.. I would settle for
"Blah.. Blah.. 123 agreement was a hugely unpopular... India and US were on opposite side of the cold war... Blah Blah "


rather than the alternate version... At least we have the option of :(( :(( which India always seems to end it self in and for some who rather enjoy wallowing in sympathy only to sign-up for last minute deal's than getting job's done through a clear strategy and follow up action..

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47571
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Aug 2007 20:06

Folks I understand you anxiety to discuss the 'deal' but speculating about what India did or has done in the tests is not useful.

BTW, Seem Mustafa article needs to be studied even though she is shrill. There are deeper undercurrents that she is spilling which have FP & IS implications.

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

Postby Shankar » 18 Aug 2007 20:07

Some thing is grossly wrong with the nuke deal -we can never know but just a look back

- why do we need need civilian nuke co operation?we have done fine without so far including the fast breeder reactor and the advanced heavy water reactor is quite advanced stage including technology for thorium utilization.The nuke scientists who so vehemently opposed the deal appears to have made a u-turn why?

-why do we open up out capability both civilian and militaryto intrussive inspection what it is going to get us specifically

-how does 20000 MW in next 15 yrs or so aid in our energy security ?less than 2% of projected national energy requirement

- on one hand we want self reliance in all hi tech areas and next divert the resources to buy US systems about 40-100 billion dollars worth.why?

- why we are in so much rush to impleemnt the deal ?more important why US is in such rush to steam roll the deal thru

- why the govt is saying we can test anytime we feel like it and then agin saying it is not a requisite to our strategic nuclear program

- we have acheived self reliance in all fields from minning to spent fuel reprocessing to reactor design to weapon design then why we want US INPUTS

-surely any "technology "we get cannot be used even indirectly for our own programmes like make advanced reactors or weapons then why?

- why we are already towing US policy in Iran even before the deal is implemented and any benefit is seen?

- why we are so anxious to buy US systems ?

- why this sudden US interest in deal after our economic growth touched 9% and not before?

- if we can achieve 9% and aiming for 10% growth this year how much extra growth can our govt assure with the nuke deal implemented?

- why till today there was no open debate on the issue except some condescending speech in the parliament -a big gloss over ?

- why we are accepting a de

facto non nuclear weapon status by agreeing ban on tests ,intrusive inspections including fissile material inventory on an annualized basis .

How will US corporations help in our 3 stage nuclear energy program?

Dont you think we are giving up too much just for few hundred tons of uranium?

US objective is stop-cap-rollback indian nuclear weapon programe -well they are going about it smartly -I think

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

Postby sraj » 18 Aug 2007 20:08

ldev wrote:The China agreement was part of the packge of carrots extended to China for aligning with the West against the Soviets. By the late 1980s, the Soviets were a waning force, bogged down in Afghanistan etc. So COTUS was in no hurry to ratify. (comment: actually, COTUS did ratify the China agreement very quickly after it was submitted to them by Reagan on July 24, 1985 -- the precise dates are Nov 21, 1985 (Senate) and Dec 11, 1985 (House)). Also whether GOTUS/COTUS admit it or not, Chinese proliferation was a concern. And then Tiananmen happened in 1989 which delayed ratification by a few more years. (comment: exactly, these two factors together delayed the one-time (not annual as in India's case) Presidential certification -- required as a pre-requisite to implement the agreement -- until January 12, 1998)
...............
But inspite of that the Chinese had to get a pass mark on their non proliferation record via a certificate to Congress. That did not happen until sometime in 2002/2003. (comment: as noted above, this certification happened in January 1998, not 2002/2003)

So folks who think that "domestic US law" does not apply to China dont know which end they are talking from. It does not matter that there is a clause that "domestic US law" does not apply in the Chinese agreement. Ever since 1985, US interests have always dictated the pace of implementation of that agreement. (comment: in which case it should be relatively straightforward to use the same language as in the China agreement; why the conspicuous omission in the India agreement?)

In comparison, India is on a fast track. Because US India interests have converged on a large number of issues - Pakistan notwithstanding. (comment: precisely why India should be able to get a better deal or at least as good a deal as China got) Unlike US Chinese interests which have diverged ever since that agreement was signed (comment: in 1985). (comment: despite which, the US Admn. felt compelled in 1998 to certify to Congress that Chinese non-proliferation policies and practices were acceptable although they "apparently did not have adequate assurances from the PRC" on this subject at that time ---- pls see Page CRS 19 of Congressional Report) linked here

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6075
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 18 Aug 2007 20:09

Muppalla:

Excellent retort, but to cube's credit, he has clearly and elegantly articulated why he is pro-deal and it makes eminent sense, minus his pummeling of the sceptics as energizer bunnies.

I have reluctantly signed on, and I certainly don't buy this garnage that this some great seminal event in India-US relations; in fact I am bitter that at the end of the day, US has articulated this to advance its non proliferation agenda very clearly, while puppet constable MMS, ever so coy of advancing India's nuke posture, has been defensive at best, and only when pushed comes out with some staid faint-hearted rubbish on preserving 'our "righ" to test' bla bla.

williams
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Postby williams » 18 Aug 2007 20:26

US objective is stop-cap-rollback indian nuclear weapon programe -well they are going about it smartly -I think


US objective was the same right from the birth of Independent India. But we were smarter to defeat their objective so far. If they could not do it when we were weak, I am confident they cannot do it when we are much stronger today.

I am not sure if any healthy debate in the parliament is even possible. Problem is no one is ready to debate anything there. Off late Parliament has become a forum of shouting and throwing insults than having a debate.

I do agree though that MMS could have done a better job in trying to invoke a debate in the parliament. So I will be happy if left pulls the plug and a stronger NDA type govt comes to power. But let us see, Indian politics is a mystery to understand.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7037
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 18 Aug 2007 20:29

CRamS wrote:Muppalla:

Excellent retort, but to cube's credit, he has clearly and elegantly articulated why he is pro-deal and it makes eminent sense, minus his pummeling of the sceptics as energizer bunnies.


I am not anti-deal and I am not trying(I am not capable) to retort N3. I just have some disagreements regarding his reading of Indian domestic politics :) :)

I believe India has means and power to circumvent the negatives that can come out of this deal. My issue is not with the deal but with the current stupids in power who has no politcal approach to problem solving. I wish I am proved wrong on this aspect.

CRamS wrote:I have reluctantly signed on, and I certainly don't buy this garnage that this some great seminal event in India-US relations; in fact I am bitter that at the end of the day, US has articulated this to advance its non proliferation agenda very clearly, while puppet constable MMS, ever so coy of advancing India's nuke posture, has been defensive at best, and only when pushed comes out with some staid faint-hearted rubbish on preserving 'our "righ" to test' bla bla.


I believe India needs to paly as a big boy and this deal is very helpful in the short term. If India plays its cards is such a way that all the external fuel is not just from US and also ensure an economic cost on the fuel sellers there should be no problem when India need to test again. Meanwhile if India creates its own fuel then there is nothing much this three digit deal can do to India. Let US have its NPA agenda and India has its own while shaking hands. What are we going to lose if we put a sound strategy in nuclear fuel trade.

However, MMS is definitey not worthy to lead India. His approach to clinch this deal internally is a disaster. In the first round his office (PMO) discredited the SCICOM and only after AK made the right noise, he reluctantly included them. After the beuracrats did a good job, he couldn't do an equivalant job politically. He is jsut "nalayak".

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 18 Aug 2007 20:42

CRamS wrote:Muppalla:

Excellent retort, but to cube's credit, he has clearly and elegantly articulated why he is pro-deal and it makes eminent sense, minus his pummeling of the sceptics as energizer bunnies.

I have reluctantly signed on, and I certainly don't buy this garnage that this some great seminal event in India-US relations; in fact I am bitter that at the end of the day, US has articulated this to advance its non proliferation agenda very clearly, while puppet constable MMS, ever so coy of advancing India's nuke posture, has been defensive at best, and only when pushed comes out with some staid faint-hearted rubbish on preserving 'our "righ" to test' bla bla.


CRamS,

My request to you, please leave personal animus out of this. When you can safely argue your point by holding the Govt. accountable, to avoid allegations of partisan hackery and the subsequent trolling..

Sorry to repost, but some Googling I ended up with this :

Robinder Sachdev, director, India Operations, USINPAC


The above might not be a technocrat, but atleast we should pay heed the "intent" and direction in which the winds are blowing in the US, considering his position.

And if India conducts a test?

HINDUSTAN TIMES, AUGUST 17, 2007
Robinder Sachdev
August 16, 2007
Last Updated: 00:10 IST(17/8/2007)

Under the US Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act, there is no way that India can avoid sanctions if it conducts a nuclear test in the future. Sanctions will imply a clampdown on future cooperation, as well as the US administration being required to demand the return of materials that are of US origin. In such a scenario, how can the Indian government convince its people that investment of billions of dollars and energy supplies will not be jeopardised if India conducts a test?

The answer may lie in a simple but imaginative right-sourcing strategy: don’t procure materials and equipment from the US. If India doesn’t buy equipment and fuel from US suppliers, then its investments and energy security aren’t dependent on any US action after a test. By procuring its supplies from countries other than the US, India will insulate itself from sanctions and return of materials.

In the absence of any other compelling rationale by New Delhi to assure that its investments will not be prejudiced in the future, right-sourcing seems to be the only mechanism that can defend its position. Such a strategy to deepen strategic relations with the US, yet not be dependent on their supplies, will also dovetail neatly into India’s strategic worldview where it sees an emerging balance of powers in the 21st century global order. The US government may well be aware of this strategy. Its willingness to sacrifice narrow commercial interest of one particular industry in order to obtain a broader political and economic partnership with India may be unique in its history, and that speaks of the vision and stakes at hand.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 18 Aug 2007 20:45

Muppalla wrote:
However, MMS is definitey not worthy to lead India. His approach to clinch this deal internally is a disaster. In the first round his office (PMO) discredited the SCICOM and only after AK made the right noise, he reluctantly included them. After the beuracrats did a good job, he couldn't do an equivalant job politically. He is jsut "nalayak".


Read Ramana's last post.
There is a link between Congress change of its policy and this deal. There is change in ideology of Congress party with this deal with US.

Read the first few para of Seema Mustafa's article.

member_11450
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

Postby member_11450 » 18 Aug 2007 20:52

Lets all accept a few facts:

1. All of the Key Civilian Indian Nuclear Reactors are running at less then their rated capacity. The main reason for this is lack of quality fuel. We got some emergency shipments from Russia last year but those stocks will not last for ever. WE DON'T HAVE TOO MANY CHOICES

2. Read the 123 agreement carefully along with the Henry Hyde Act. While there is a provision for termination of the agreement this requires a determination by the President of USA that the suspension/termination will not harm the interests of the USA. The stakes for both India and US are substantially raised in the event of the termination of the agreement. The Agreement has been created basis the explicit acceptance by the USA that India is a responsible Nuclear Power. Testing for the sake of testing is not-responsible. If testing of a nuclear device has to be carried out by India in the present geopolitical scenerio that would happen only of China was to take a offensive posture. Now read between the line - That scenerio is also not good for USA. So the President of USA will have to make a determination on weather termination of the agreement will be harmful to the National Interests of USA.

3. Long term Energy security of India is going to be more ciritical for India to continue on a sustainable growth path. This will mean access to stable, long term and clean energy sources. Disparity and unequality in India can be decreased only through sustained and equitable economic growth. Fossile based fuel sources may not be sustainable over a extended time horizon. All the people entering this debate need to understand that its economic power that will determine the resources that we will have at out disposal in the eventuality of a Dooms day scenerio.
Energy security will also determine long term soverignity rather then the Nuclear bombs.

4. Its assumed that in the future Nuclear testing will not be required. Even if required the warheads could be sub-kilo tonne warheads that could be carried out with out detection :D . Further computer simulation technologies using COTS frameworks exist even today. For those who don't understand what I am saying check out the Nigara Chip from SUN Microsystems Line up 128 node of that using a Grid Manager and with some nice C++ coading from our System Integrators we will have a platform in place.

5. Analyse the news, guys there is a uncanny consistancy beetween the words coming out of China and from Comarade Bardhan & COMPANY. The COMMIS seem to be taking orders form the other side of the border. Lets give then the right to determine their national alligence and with either choices they should be locked up and sent to KALA PANI.

Its time that the Wagha Candle lighters, the Chinese and the COMMIS kept their trap shut.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 454
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Postby Avarachan » 18 Aug 2007 20:58

enqyoob wrote:Those who think this deal should be scrapped, should please tell us why, without causing us to :rotfl: :rotfl:

The trouble is that in a gazillion posts and press articles and long-winded Lok Sabha speeches and calls for bullets in the PM's head, there has not been a single valid reason given. There HAVE been hajaaaar "reasons" given, but all have proved to be worth about one post of examination at most.

I'll start listing the objections that have already bitten the dust:

1. "China got a better deal than India". False.
2. "India has lost the freedom to test nukes because of this deal". False

... the rest were just even worse. Someone may have the patience to go back and list them all.

The problem I have with the BJP leadership is this:

If you keep lying to us, eventually we will conclude that you are liars.


And they have gone way past the point of no return.


____________________________________

I don't think this article by Brahma Chellaney has been posted. It's a few weeks old, but it's an excellent analysis of the spin surrounding this deal. After that, I'm posting his recent analysis of the deal itself.

http://www.asianage.com/presentation/co ... dplay.aspx

Frail deal built on wordplay

Stagecraft & Statecraft | Brahma Chellaney

While the Indian foreign minister has claimed "all concerns of India have been reflected and adequately addressed" in the just-concluded bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act (AEC), Washington has asserted that the accord safeguards US interests "from a variety of different perspectives." In public comments and background briefings, the two governments have zealously sought to put their own spin. The true picture would be known once they unwrap the still-secret text. New Delhi in particular appears anxious to soften public opinion at home before releasing the fine print.

Two important points, however, have already been admitted by both sides - that the so-called 123 agreement expressly states that nuclear cooperation would be governed by "national laws" of the two parties; and that its text is within the parameters set by the India-specific, conditions-laden Hyde Act. As US undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns has bragged, "We're very satisfied because we know the agreement is well within the bounds of the Hyde Act."

In fact, US officials have gone to the extent of saying that the concessions they made in the fine print are more in the form of semantic guile than in substance, designed to help India address critics at home and seal the accord. The Washington Times, close to the White House, has quoted administration and congressional sources as saying that "some language is deliberately vague to help both sides save face" and that the text was "deliberately written in a way that can be interpreted differently by the two sides."

In other words, both sides can claim success, while in reality the cooperation would be conditioned by the Hyde Act, euphemistically referred to in the text as the applicability of "national laws." That is exactly what this columnist had warned in a two-part article last May 14-15 - that if the 123 agreement were to be in consonance with the Hyde Act and yet not rub salt on Indian wounds, there was only one way out: semantic subterfuge in the fine print. The reluctance to release the text more than a week after the agreement was concluded is a sign that there have been only semantic compromises on key issues. And US officials are saying so.


For India, this represents a major climbdown: having told Parliament that the Hyde Act contained provisions that were either "prescriptive" in ways incompatible with the July 18, 2005 joint statement or "extraneous" to engagement "between friends," New Delhi has come round to accepting cooperation with the US on the basis of the onerous and grating conditions in the US legislation. Indeed, in defining India's bottom line in Parliament last August 17, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had admitted, "We have concerns over both the House and Senate versions of the Bill."

However, once the US legislative process was completed without meeting most of the PM's benchmarks, New Delhi readily entered the next stage - negotiations over a 123 agreement - by pretending that Dr Singh's assurances to Parliament could be addressed in that process. That was just a charade to buy political space, given that India's deal-related commitments by then had already been expanded and turned into immutable legal obligations through US domestic law.

New Delhi was aware that even if the 123 agreement did not incorporate the controversial conditions of the Hyde Act, it would hardly free India from their obligations. America has always maintained that because such a bilateral agreement is a requirement not under international law but under US law, it cannot supersede American law. Washington has only reinforced its legal position by incorporating in the 123-agreement text the primacy of "national laws."

New Delhi indeed knows from its bitter Tarapur experience that a 123 agreement has little sanctity in international law. The earlier Indo-US 123 accord, signed in 1963, was abandoned by Washington in 1978 - four years after the first Indian nuclear test - simply by enacting a new domestic law that retroactively overrode the bilateral pact. That broke with impunity a guarantee to supply "timely" fuel "as needed" for the US-built Tarapur plant.

Now, New Delhi claims it has secured assured fuel supply in the new 123 agreement, and that in the event of any disruption, the US would find an alternative source. But US officials are already disputing that. The Washington Times has quoted officials as saying "the language does not commit them to do anything specific. Rather, if there is an interruption because of technical or logistical difficulties, they will try to do what is appropriate." That is in line with the Hyde Act which says assured fuel supply covers only disruption due to "market failures or similar reasons," not sanctions arising from India's non-compliance with US-imposed conditions.

More broadly, it should not be forgotten that only after India has complied with all the Hyde Act's preconditions that the US Congress would take up the final deal for approval.

And although the Hyde Act provides for an

up-or-down vote on a joint resolution - a practice that does not permit any amendment - the legislation's own explanatory statement reserves the right for Congress to "pass a joint resolution of approval with conditions" by giving up "the expedited procedures offered by Sections 123 and 130 of the AEA." That is exactly what happened with the US nuclear deal with China, when Congress attached three conditions to its 1985 joint resolution of approval, resulting in a nearly 13-year hold.

But before the final Indo-US deal can go before Congress, it has to secure approval from the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency board and the 45-state Nuclear Suppliers' Group. Even in the best-case scenario, with all the remaining hurdles being crossed, the US will perpetually hang the threat of re-imposition of civil nuclear sanctions to enforce India's compliance with the Hyde Act's post-implementation conditions.

New Delhi is itching to enter into a new 123 agreement without resolving the outstanding issues from the earlier 123 accord. The Tarapur spent fuel has been accumulating for 36 years. Washington has neither compensated New Delhi for the large costs it continues to incur to store the highly radioactive spent fuel nor allowed India to reprocess it by accepting that IAEA safeguards can be effectively applied at the PREFRE facility specially built for this purpose.

While the PM had pledged to secure the removal of "restrictions on all aspects of cooperation," including "reprocessing spent fuel," the US, under the new 123 accord, has conceded only a theoretical right to India to reprocess, with the practical right to be worked out in negotiations with the US in the future. India would build a new reprocessing facility with safeguards involving US participation. This not only prolongs the Tarapur imbroglio but also raises a larger question: why acquiesce to the US having a political say on reprocessing when the issue of safeguards involves only the IAEA?

Take another issue - a perpetual nuclear test ban on India. Through the means of a domestic law, America today seeks to implicitly bind India to an international pact whose ratification the US Senate rejected in 1999 - the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Such a test ban, as both sides have admitted, cannot be, and has not been, diluted by the 123 agreement. Even the US "right to return" remains untouched. However, as the Washington Times puts it, "to help New Delhi save face domestically, the administration agreed to consult with the Indian government before taking any action in response to a test, officials said. The Indians presented that language as a major US concession, but US officials said consultations do not mean much in practice."

New Delhi should be fully cognisant of what it is getting into. It would be effectively embracing CTBT-plus obligations that no nation has done. Although the PM had pledged that India is "not prepared to go beyond a unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing," the Hyde Act seeks to enforce a tight, irrevocable test prohibition against India by actually going beyond the existing provisions of US law, which empower the President to continue exports on strategic grounds despite a test. By decreeing that the waiver for India will automatically terminate with any Indian test, the Hyde Act itself admits that it goes "beyond Section 129" of AEC.

Besides seeking "full and immediate use of US rights to demand the return of all nuclear-related items … if India were to test," the Act goes beyond even the CTBT by specifying in technical terms what is prohibited for India. In the CTBT negotiations, the US had successfully opposed an Article I definition of a "nuclear explosion" to leave open loopholes for "permissible activities" of the type it carries out at its Nevada test site. While refusing to accede to the CTBT itself, the US would be enforcing CTBT-plus obligations on India. Once India has imported power reactors worth billions of dollars, the Hyde Act will effectively bear it down.

Against this background, the debate on the 123 agreement needs to be conducted in a sober, realistic way, not through spin and hoopla. By papering over fundamental differences, the deal could engender serious Indo-US discord in the years ahead. That danger is already manifest from the conflicting analysis of the still-secret 123 agreement by official briefers. One US congressional official is quoted as saying, "The way the Indians are reading it is not correct from the administration's point of view."

Too often in its independent history, India has rushed to believe what it wanted to believe, only to cry betrayal later.

_____________________________________

http://www.asianage.com/archive/htmlfil ... ntext.html

123: text and context

By Brahma Chellaney

New Delhi, Aug. 3: The released text of the 123 agreement on civil nuclear cooperation reveals that the United States, besides upholding the primacy of its laws, has gained two absolute rights â€â€

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6036
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 18 Aug 2007 21:00

Shankar wrote:Some thing is grossly wrong with the nuke deal -we can never know but just a look back

- why do we need need civilian nuke co operation?we have done fine without so far including the fast breeder reactor and the advanced heavy water reactor is quite advanced stage including technology for thorium utilization.The nuke scientists who so vehemently opposed the deal appears to have made a u-turn why?


This has been answered upteempth times but here I hope I posit it properly. We need energy and lots of it. We are at a cusp where we can fly into stratosphere, but for that we need energy and lots of it and cheap. Even to make solar cells you need to crystallize silicon from sand, raw materials are cheap, final product is costly! Why, it takes energy. Look at the amount of power cuts that happen. Imagine the havoc on productivity it plays in both hard and soft parts of economy [industry and offices] and only in India we have a market of UPS [uninterrupted power supply] systems almost as big or even bigger than the computer h/w. Now coming back to the nuclear scientists supporting the deal, imagine this way, who will Reliance (say) hire as consultants when they want to construct 20 civilian nuclear power stations? It will be good for all the scientists in future with the market expanding from current 4000 MW to 40000 MW!

-why do we open up out capability both civilian and militaryto intrussive inspection what it is going to get us specifically
.

Who is saying millitary capability will be opened up for inspection? And define intrusive? Infact for the civilian nuclear sector, inspections will be positive since it will force the civilian industry to be transparent and adhere to standards!!

-how does 20000 MW in next 15 yrs or so aid in our energy security ?less than 2% of projected national energy requirement


There will be less than 2% power shortage all over India. Now assuming that the Industrial belt between Bombay to Rajkot consumes 2% of the total Indian power, now this added capacity will ensure uninterrupted power to that belt for 365 days a year! Its productivity will jump from low estimates of 3x to high estimates of 5x - that is 6% to 10%. Since there will be no need to worry about power cuts or schedule industry timeouts during the day and let the factories idle during peak hours of power cut or spend money behind burning diesel to power the gensets... Just go down to Surat once and see the effect of even an hour of power cut on the diamond and textile industries!

- on one hand we want self reliance in all hi tech areas and next divert the resources to buy US systems about 40-100 billion dollars worth.why?


And can you ask where will they source the components from? Will they buy the cement from US - ship it all the way here? All nuts and bolts are shipped from US? All labourors and crane operators to construct the plant - will they come from US?

- why we are in so much rush to impleemnt the deal ?more important why US is in such rush to steam roll the deal thru


Either we swim now or we will sink....

- why the govt is saying we can test anytime we feel like it and then agin saying it is not a requisite to our strategic nuclear program


Or put it other way, just because you do not have the need to test now does not mean you want to close the door on further testing. Government may want to do a series of tests later for sub-kiloton testing to improve its tactical weapons stock. What's wrong with that statement?

- we have acheived self reliance in all fields from minning to spent fuel reprocessing to reactor design to weapon design then why we want US INPUTS


To increase competition? Currently, in high tech, the options are like choosing between Ambassador or the Premier Padmini.

-surely any "technology "we get cannot be used even indirectly for our own programmes like make advanced reactors or weapons then why?


Who cares about the product? What about the process? There is always the fear of brain drain from Defense to Civil, for a change, why we cannot assume that trained personnel will be available for Defense to choose from Civil. Okay let us say di rect recruiting will not happen, what about Defense giving contracts for dual-use items to private companies? It will actually bring the overall costs down! Since the same titanium bold I manufacture can be sold to all!!

- why we are already towing US policy in Iran even before the deal is implemented and any benefit is seen?


What is wrong with making US feel that we are towing its policy while achieving our own goals! Why do we have to bleed heart when a crazy mullah does not gets nukes? Actually it is in our interest to make sure that we are the only ones in the neighbourhood to have nukes!

- why we are so anxious to buy US systems ?


And Australian fuel? What makes you think that it is only US systems?

- why this sudden US interest in deal after our economic growth touched 9% and not before?


Because we were paupers and not enough of a market. Even now, for some systems, India is not a big market and is not even on radar! Hurts your H&D? But that is the truth!

- if we can achieve 9% and aiming for 10% growth this year how much extra growth can our govt assure with the nuke deal implemented?


What about equitable growth? Why should the offices suffer power cut when power is routed to Sugar mills? Or why should the farmer suffer? Or why should the housewife has to run to the water tankers to store a day's worth of water - day in and out? Imagine the productivity when all the women folk in the cities are freed up? They will join the workforce in even larger number and more growth - and probably more equitable growth.

- why till today there was no open debate on the issue except some condescending speech in the parliament -a big gloss over ?


There is no debate if both sides are not civil.

- why we are accepting a de facto non nuclear weapon status by agreeing ban on tests ,intrusive inspections including fissile material inventory on an annualized basis .


Why do we have to require a certificate from an outside agency to prove that we have "b@lls"? Is it a big deal if somebody calls us a chicken? Do we have to go and prove our mardangi? Where is the confidence in ourselves then?

How will US corporations help in our 3 stage nuclear energy program?


They will not help us. They will help themselves. Try the Gujju thing here, you do not make money by taking money in one go. You make more money by rotating the money often and take a small profit gain in each rotation. That is called a "money spinner". Similarly in the process of those companies enabling themselves to make money, they will make money for us.

Dont you think we are giving up too much just for few hundred tons of uranium?


It is like saying aren't we rejecting a plot for a house because the house has not been constructed yet?

US objective is stop-cap-rollback indian nuclear weapon programe -well they are going about it smartly -I think


That is their objective. What is our objective? I think real smartness lies in the fact that one should make the other party feel smart and good about themselves while silently achieving the goals.
Last edited by disha on 18 Aug 2007 21:09, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7537
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 18 Aug 2007 21:03



Rubbish... there will be no Chinese reactors until the NSG grants a full scope safeguards waiver. If the Chinese defy the NSG they will be denied the foreign reactors and fuel. The Chinese will not inconvenience themselves for the sake of Pakistan...


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7537
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 18 Aug 2007 21:32

ALP's uranium export policy 'contradictory'
Mr Howard said the safeguards are as strong as the NPT.
"If you can get the same safeguards, why is it okay to sell to China but not okay to sell to democratic India which is the largest democracy in the world?''

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7537
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 18 Aug 2007 21:37

Coastal states set to get nuclear power
Almost all coastal states will have atomic power plants once the Indo-US civil nuclear deal is signed and the Nuclear Power Corporation is identifying sites for setting up projects in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Gujarat and West Bengal that will generate over 30,000 MW.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7037
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 18 Aug 2007 22:01

Let me post it here for discussion.

ramana wrote:
India fights back
By Seema Mustafa

Truth. This has been the casualty of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision to throw wide open the Indian doors for the United States in agriculture, defence, business, trade and of course civilian nuclear energy cooperation. Everything is being done under a cloak of secrecy, through denials, half truths, outright lies from the government that is seeking a radical change in the relationship between New Delhi and Washington without taking the country into confidence.

{With half the cabinet and MPs kids in the US why this secrecy? After the end of Cold War and collapse of FSU, no one in their right mind would dispute the need to align with US. What can be done openly the UPA does secretly. Why didnt the UPA and MMS in particulur feel the need to sell the story on its merits from the begining? There were repeated calls for him to explain the deal in Parliament and he would make some su moto statement what ever that is and have his underlings deal with the debate. Then he had his minion Sanjay Baru threaten folks in the media and control the access to the briefing.}
It was clear from the beginning that the Prime Minister was aware that he was acting against the tide of national consensus, but he was determined to go ahead regardless, and a decision had been taken somewhere along the way that if the truth was unpalatable for the people of India it could be dressed up in half truths and lies. What one is witnessing currently in Parliament is the effort by democratic India to make the Executive accountable to the will of the people, and to ensure that the truth of the strategic alliance between India and the US is placed before the country for close scrutiny.

Every perceived bottom line in relations between the two countries has been overturned. The defence framework agreement signed by Pranab Mukherjee with the US, when he was the defence minister, is already on the fast track for implementation. The US is particularly interested in the Indian Navy that has been drawn into a large number of exercises with the Americans and its allies in the region. The Quadrilateral set up by the US with India, Australia and Japan had China issuing a demarche to the participating nations asking for explanations. Instead of pausing for thought, or even attempting to understand and analyse how this quadrilateral would work for the future of India, the government is now going in for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal with its new allies and Singapore. This will be the largest naval exercise since the Cold War.

{Why doesnt the GOI release the KS task force report so that folks understand Indian interests in this alignment?}

The US has it all worked out. It is not acting with the blindness of the proverbial monkey. Any number of strategy papers have been prepared on different aspects of India-US relations, coming at the question from all sides, offering words of caution, advice, and detailing recommendations that have all gone into determining US strategy for India. For instance, think tanks had recommended the need for the de-hyphenated relationship between India and Pakistan long before it became the official policy of the US state department.

The point being made here is that the Americans have put a lot of thought and work into the emerging relationship with India, and based it on, one, India is a huge market and cannot be ignored for business and trade reasons, at least that is what is used to sell the strategy to the big corporations and a public driven by money; two, India with its large Muslim population is a good ally for the US in West Asia; three, it is the only power in the region that can contain China; four, it has one of the most professional militaries that can now be used by the US to effect its strategic plans in the region, such as monitoring the Malacca Straits; and five, a system of checks and controls over India would boost US plans for the world.

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

Postby Shankar » 18 Aug 2007 22:18

This has been answered upteempth times but here I hope I posit it properly. We need energy and lots of it. We are at a cusp where we can fly into stratosphere, but for that we need energy and lots of it and cheap. Even to make solar cells you need to crystallize silicon from sand, raw materials are cheap, final product is costly! Why, it takes energy. Look at the amount of power cuts that happen. Imagine the havoc on productivity it plays in both hard and soft parts of economy [industry and offices] and only in India we have a market of UPS [uninterrupted power supply] systems almost as big or even bigger than the computer h/w. Now coming back to the nuclear scientists supporting the deal, imagine this way, who will Reliance (say) hire as consultants when they want to construct 20 civilian nuclear power stations? It will be good for all the scientists in future with the market expanding from current 4000 MW to 40000 MW!


-a very simplistic analysis and one that is not supported by facts . Average load factor of our existing nuclear power plants was around 60% .If we had enough uranium it would have been may be 90% but considering it is less than 3% of total power generated how much diffrence would that have made in real terms .

For a trillion dollar economy poised for 10% annualised growth even the proposed 20000 MW or even 40 000 MW over the next 30 odd years is peanuts . We need the energy sure but it is not likely to come from nuclear fuels in near future .It will come from fast thorium but that thorium will come from kerala and not US. And from gas and oil and coal.Put your foot on ground check up the power generation data of the last few years and the answer will be clear .This energy security thru imported uranium is just for public consumption and the price is partial roll back of our strategic program which is quite advanced
Who is saying military capability will be opened up for inspection? And define intrusive? In fact for the civilian nuclear sector, inspections will be positive since it will force the civilian industry to be transparent and adhere to standards!!


without going into too many details an annual report will have to be filed which state how much uranium we have mined and how much of it has gone to civilian pro gramme and obviously rest to military program me.If this is not intrusive what is . US inspectors will have the right not to just inspect the power plants but all institutions connected to civilian nuclear power program me and that includes fuel fabrication,reprocessing,waste fuel storage etc etc .Since lot of these facilities as on date have multi function-it will be intrusion of highest order

here will be less than 2% power shortage all over India. Now assuming that the Industrial belt between Bombay to Rajkot consumes 2% of the total Indian power, now this added capacity will ensure uninterrupted power to that belt for 365 days a year! Its productivity will jump from low estimates of 3x to high estimates of 5x - that is 6% to 10%. Since there will be no need to worry about power cuts or schedule industry timeouts during the day and let the factories idle during peak hours of power cut or spend money behind burning diesel to power the gensets... Just go down to Surat once and see the effect of even an hour of power cut on the diamond and textile indus


again a simplistic analysis . What is important is peak power shortage not average shortage or demand supply gap but peak time gap which is as high as 25% in some states like maharastra .Nuclear power plants like thermal plants cannot really help there -gas turbines can.That is why US uses turbines as quick reaction reserve

we need many fast breeders so that the pile of spent fuel read uranium and plutonium can be effectively used for both power generation and weapon production simultaneously.The breeders produce as you may be aware more plutonium than it consumes and also converts the thorium blanket into uranium 233 to be used in advanced heavy water reactors .

Light water reactors which are the key feature of the deal whcih the US firms like GE/WH will sell to Reliance/Tata just are not a part of this .And what next you set up fast breeders in cvilian sectors too to burn up the mass of spent fuel and allow IAEC inspectors into the closely guarded breeder technology too and then follow into AHWR too

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

Postby mandrake » 18 Aug 2007 22:18

I have some very simple points regarding the clash among plicymakers,

1. I feel the deal is good for us , albeit if it is not discriminatory which I'll led the experts to judge.

2. You cannot change the world order unless you play a significant part in it, political will is needed for such things, some person stated 123 will create a strong non-testing lobby inside our country, again without political will we will get nothing, because it is these precise logjams that can be overcome through clear national vision.

3. I feel BJP is again on the wrong side of the coin as in todays NDTV they didnt throwed much brilliant questions as to why EXACTLY they are opposiing this deal.

4. They should have supported the government in this deal and ask the government to formulate their own hyde act equivalent or national nuclear laws.

5. BJP should use this oppurtunity to make this government fall and then form a coalition with congress government or let the BJP support congress and left withdraw from the government.

6. The 123 agreement should serve as a medium between the Hyde-Indian national nuclear laws, the national laws should be framed in such a manner to override hyde or even initiate some diplomatic or law process which will compell the hyde to stay where it is.

7. 123 can act as a lakhshman rekha between the two countries national laws. Thus even if one countries national laws gets violated here India being at the recieving end will likely violate it first making the violation of Hyde, It should create such a psoition as to initiate or disembark the 123 Indian own national laws against US interest/or whatever gets activated.

8. It would have been way smoother this way.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 18 Aug 2007 22:26

India fights back By Seema Mustafa


If i have to ellucidate the central theme of this passage, it can be said as "Indians/GoI cluelessness and Amercians shrewdness" :roll:

Top notch statement to be highlighted is "How can he and his party presume that they know better what is good for the country than the majority of politicians representing all the states in India, many of them having more contact with the masses and the grassroots than those leading the Congress party today?". :cry:

Very true isnt it? when we seen on camera how MPs took bribery to raise slogans in parliment. Answer to this could be( a statement from the previous post).
I think real smartness lies in the fact that one should make the other party feel smart and good about themselves while silently achieving the goals.

Another sentence which i liked the most "The US is particularly interested in the Indian Navy that has been drawn into a large number of exercises with the Americans and its allies in the region. Instead of pausing for thought, or even attempting to understand and analyse how this quadrilateral would work for the future of India, the government is now going in for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal with its new allies and Singapore" :roll: I doesnt need any comments.

The writer should be a gr8 expert :roll: see she knows everything from defence, geo-politics, american strategic acumen, local politics, international politics.. and what not. Pls let the country produce more people like her. :x

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47571
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Aug 2007 22:29

Kanson, Please post in Interests thread as she is telling us something. See my post there. She is sending a message.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6036
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 18 Aug 2007 22:43

Shankar wrote:without going into too many details an annual report will have to be filed which state how much uranium we have mined and how much of it has gone to civilian pro gramme and obviously rest to military program me.If this is not intrusive what is . US inspectors will have the right not to just inspect the power plants but all institutions connected to civilian nuclear power program me and that includes fuel fabrication,reprocessing,waste fuel storage etc etc .Since lot of these facilities as on date have multi function-it will be intrusion of highest order


It would be good if it is tabled and it is transparent how much Uranium is going for millitary purposes and how many bums or bum making capability India has. This will be a deterrent itself in a way. Transparency helps and it will make the millitary usage efficient too. As for the civilian side intrusive inspection is required and absolutely necessary, just to keep the corporates honest!!! Better for all of us. Also the other point you miss in your more complex analysis is that it will free up the GOI from spending resources to setup the civilian side of the reactors. This point is definitely missed.

The other side of the story when you say that nuke forms only 2% of current capacity and even if it grows to say 4% of current, it will be measly. But did you realize that it is 100% growth there? Or if the current capacity is increased from 2000 MW to 20000 MW, that is 10x growth? It is the rate of the growth that matters. Thermal plants are dead, look at the coal mining tragedies happening in US and China. Hydro electric plants are dead - look at the ecological disasters they may and the people they displace. Gas based plants? Gas will run out of gas in near future... Where is the new growth in electricity going to come from? Think about it and for a change, try to think "simple".

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 18 Aug 2007 22:57

There can two interpretations. Let me speak about the other side.

After the march seperation plan, every indian from Pranav roy to local walla geefully gave interview abt how smart we were in getting the concessions. What it led to ? The infamous Hyde act.

All these hides (not open nature) is to prevent further Hyde types till the passage of final vote in Congress, NSG clearance and IAEA indian specific safeguards.

Still the marathon is not complete. We have to wait before passing judgements. MHO.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3234
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 18 Aug 2007 23:08

The trouble is that in a gazillion posts and press articles and long-winded Lok Sabha speeches and calls for bullets in the PM's head,


You are well aware that no one has said anything of that sort. Your arguments stand up for themselves, so stop the historinics.

Having said that though, I mostly agree with you. The only issue I have is that you place far too much trust in the future behaviour of our politicians than me, hence the reservations. This deal is as good as it gets in the current form assuming our politicos can be trusted to avoid the numerous pitfalls inherent in it. Opinions will vary on how well placed that trust is.

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

Postby Shankar » 18 Aug 2007 23:16

INSTALLED CAPACITY GROWTH (MW)
Year Thermal Hydro Nuclear Total
March 1992 48,086 19,194 1,785 69,065
March 1993 50,749 19,576 2,005 72,330
March 1994 54,369 20,379 2,005 76,753
March 1995 58,113 20,833 2,225 81,171
March 1996 60,083 20,986 2,225 83,294
March 1997 61,877 21,642 2,225 85,74

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7537
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 18 Aug 2007 23:18

without going into too many details an annual report will have to be filed which state how much uranium we have mined and how much of it has gone to civilian pro gramme and obviously rest to military program me.If this is not intrusive what is .


It is not India that has to file this and the 123 says nothing about India even assisting with this.

So.. the same moron who looks at the PSLV and sees an ICBM will now pore over photos of the tailing dumps of Jaduguda mine and file a report.

They probably do this already. Now the Congress gets a copy of the intelligence. It will be just as worthless. Or maybe not... they might find Osama amongst the workers...


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests