Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Jun 2008 23:09

The trouble with Rajrang’s thesis, IMO of course, is when the author says”

3) In any case nuclear power will never exceed 5% of India's energy requirements.

“5% “ “Never” huh!! Is this (upper 5% bound ) some sort of fundamental Law of physics , ) or simply upper end of highly non-linear treacherous curve where fission products couldn’t pass through), author does not say. Sorry to be a little skeptic unless one gives some rational – Specially there are nations where this percentage is more than 5%.

Note that, the figure is presented, not as an estimate of some educated guess, or even an opinion, but rather a matter of fact! (and that too with words like "never" and "will")

So when “Thus start” on point 5 and continues on point 8 as

Thus, this deal is a STRATEGIC loss for India.

I am completely lost. Perhaps the author can enlighten me why the upper limit of 5%?

Thanks in advance, and regards. .

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 29 Jun 2008 23:19

France went from nuclear power at single digit percentage of total consumption a few decades back to about 80% nuclear today.

But hey, India will max out at 5%.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2008 23:22

The implication there is that ppl hope the "deal" (I mean the vastly better one awaiting a BJP govt) will have the US sending technical assistance to build and test nuclear bombs in India? I agree that might happen, when India becomes a US "protectorate" like Bikini Atoll.

Tangential thinking. (India has expected buying stuff, not getting people to help. Which was the initial intent of J18.)

I mentioned separation from a proliferation PoV.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent India from using something developed in the military sector to generate power for civilian use, so sorry, that argument doesn't work either. For that matter, India can put jumper cables on the batteries of a nuclear-powered submarine and use them to power coastal cities. Who's going to stop that?

I was under the impression that you were the one that subscribed to counting atoms!!! Perhaps not.

IF not, then this is where we differ ...... as I pointed out earlier, the US wants to count atoms. The US will stop India at some point in time, ONLY because of counting atoms. The US will insist on her accountants being in India ....... IAEA will vanish in a few years for sure (so will NSG).

IMHO.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jun 2008 01:37

DAE goes innovative as uranium supply gets tough

attempts to squeeze out nuclear-grade uranium from secondary sources such as phosphoric acid, metallurgical process residues and even sea water.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jun 2008 01:46

'Indo-US nuclear deal should result in two-way trade'

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jun 2008 01:47

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/3D1931BA8C3BE73165257474003EB508?OpenDocument

According to Russian nuclear energy industry Atomenergoprom's website, the nuclear fuel rods consisting of not more than 4.1 per cent uranium-235 have been delivered strictly under the IAEA guidelines and contractual obligations. The fuels will suffice for the physical launch of one reactor and its subsequent reloading after one year, the website said. Along with the fuel, Russia has supplied two VVER-1000 nuclear units with a total capacity of 2000 MWe.

Moscow and New Delhi have also signed an agreement for building four more units once the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) eases sanctions against India on the transfer of civilian nuclear technology.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jun 2008 01:48

Kirloskar Brothers bag Rs 99.24 cr orders from NPCIL

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jun 2008 01:57

N-deal with US must for Indian economy: Kasturirangan

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 30 Jun 2008 02:45

I was under the impression that you were the one that subscribed to counting atoms!!! Perhaps not.

Actually I am, thanks. As against any expectations that a 5% "Unaccounted" loss of fissile material would be "chalta hai". It's easy to see that since 1kg = 10KT, if you lose 5% of, say, 1 ton of Uranium, you have lost sight of 50kg = 5MT. No one can sleep with those kinds of numbers.

OK, now we can list the current status of the Arguments Against the Deal from today's posts above:
1. India's economic growth rate has slowed from 8-9% per year, to ONLY 6-7%. So there is no excuse to demand infrastructure growth, more power etc.

2. Anyway, nuclear power is estimated to NEVER get beyond 5% of India's power generation...

3. Current deal demands separation of military and civilian sectors in Indian nuclear R&D and fuel streams. Such separation is bad...

(Why is the separation bad?)
4. Because the US will insist on counting atoms in the Indian MILITARY SECTOR (though there is NOTHING in the deal about in any way infringing on Indians military nuclear sector).

5. That's OK (the absence of any such language in the 123 deal) because the IAEA is ANYWAY going to disappear within a few years.

6. So then the US will insist on sending its own inspectors to follow the atoms of US-supplied fuel into Indian military facilities. (why would India send the US-imported atoms into military facilities, I wonder.. when ALL domestic-mined uranium is available for the purpose..)

You see what I mean when I say that the arguments against the deal have long since run out of reason and logic, and are now way deep into (well... not 4 me to say what it is into.. ).

IF not, then this is where we differ ...... as I pointed out earlier, the US wants to count atoms. The US will stop India at some point in time, ONLY because of counting atoms. The US will insist on her accountants being in India ....... IAEA will vanish in a few years for sure (so will NSG).

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 06:50

The problem N^3 ji is IMVHO thus:

The initial arguments against the deal used to go something like this:

It’s likely that…

a) Fill in the blank

b) Fill in the blank

c) Fill in the blank

d) Etc

… Is likely to happen, so an analysis shows that the New Clear deal is bad.

All in all a perfectly logical line of thinking, even though one may not agree with points a to d.

However, at some point of time the whole thrust of arguments turned to something like this:

It’s a given (by Allah or his equivalent) that the New Clear deal is bad.

And since the unbelievers are not convinced by a to d, we have to find new points from e all the way to z to fit into the original truth i.e.: New Clear deal is very bad.

This presents a problem for nitwits like moi.

After getting a severe headache from going through points e to z and not understanding anything, the anti- New Clear deal arguments have now become a very (2) Un Clear arguments full of combustible gas (it would have helped if there was a 5% cap - like in N-power - on the production of this gas).

Added later: An example of this gas from the Rajappa article posted yesterday:

India has unlimited solar power and ocean energy, but is unable to exploit these due to lack of sufficient R & D.

Ocean energy is the definite way to go. Unlike uranium India doesn't have any shortage of sea water, does it?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2008 07:36

amit wrote: Added later: An example of this gas from the Rajappa article posted yesterday:

India has unlimited solar power and ocean energy, but is unable to exploit these due to lack of sufficient R & D.

To person with no information this would be a good argument.

To a person with some information about the state of these two sources of power - this statement could well be a self goal. We could get into an argument about these on the lines of the nuke deal arguments we have seen here.

That brings me back to the thesis that seems to be fundamental to this nuclear deal issue. it's a question of what you want to believe. No single argument is powerful enough to support or oppose the deal. And after 25.3 gadzillion posts the differences of opinion still exist. There is no black and white here. And because of that it has become primarily a political issue with everyone using technical arguments to try and bend viewpoints this way or that.

In my view India will survive either way, and either way it will suffer some consequences. I am not convinced that either signing the deal or not signing it is a life or death issue for the country. If we look at the energy hunger of the Indian population we will need every source of energy we can utilize and if we can't get one we will use another. The only thing will be the particular consequences we face after signing as opposed to those we face for not signing. We seem to be familiar with what we are facing without the deal, and there seems to be some fear of facing what comes after the deal.

All my views.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 30 Jun 2008 07:45

Actually I am 400% for war-phooting research and development on renewable energy. But NOT signing the nuclear deal is NOT going to divert a paisa into these fields, and the neta-babus are not going to suddenly turn into super-engineers to run these projects.

Also, there is a little problem with solar energy and ocean energy: they work great when the sun shines, and when the tide is right, respectively. Makes it kind-of tough to run a hospital respirator, or a computer chip making plant on it at night, or during a rainy month or a New Moon period. But that shouldn't keep Dr. Rajappa, being the Expert that he is, from using this argument. And that's what really bothers me - the fact that all these herrows are THIS hollow.

Depressing.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jun 2008 08:02

Should the N-deal be seen as anti-Muslim?

A day ahead of the crucial meeting between the Left and the UPA Government, CPM politburo member and trade union leader M K Pandhe claimed Muslims are against the Indo-US nuclear deal. CPM leader Prakash Karat attended Shia rally....

Saeed Naqvi agreed with Purkayastha and said that we shouldn’t make a mountain out of mole. “Media and our leadership is completely in out of touch with the people. It is a national and not a communal issue,” he asserted. “If one leader somewhere made a statement I would like it to be ratified by the politburo.”
....
He, however, added that the strongest opponents of the deal are China and Pakistan,..

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 08:04

shiv wrote: To a person with some information about the state of these two sources of power - this statement could well be a self goal. We could get into an argument about these on the lines of the nuke deal arguments we have seen here.

Shiv,
I have no issues with solar energy. It’s an area that should be looked into as an alternative energy source. However, despite huge advances in photovoltaic technology, even the PV industry does not claim to be an alternative energy player to nuclear and fossil fuels.

As an example Renewable Energy Corp is setting up the world’s largest photovoltaic plant. When completed by 2010 it will produce enough equipment to generate up to 1.5 gig watts of energy annually, enough to serve several million homes.

Impressive undoubtedly but even assuming every piece of equipment made by REC is used in India for making solar plants (which it can’t be because different PVs are used for different purposes) even then that won’t solve our energy problem.

What India needs is not to go for one or two different energy source to the exclusion of other sources? It needs to go for solar, wind, hydel, fossil AND nuclear power with the same gusto.

Rajappa is just voicing the dangerous line of thinking that we can just simple ignore Nuclear and look at other sources of energy.

And because of that it has become primarily a political issue with everyone using technical arguments to try and bend viewpoints this way or that.

That's the biggest tragedy for the nuclear deal. It's become a political hot potatoe. Otherwise how can one explain the kind of language that's been used against the deal proponents. One usually hears those kind adjectives during no-holds barred political campaigning. It's still a shock to me how they found their way into BRF.

In my view India will survive either way, and either way it will suffer some consequences. I am not convinced that either signing the deal or not signing it is a life or death issue for the country.

Couldn't agree with you more on this point. That's one reason I really get worked up when people post things like Hedge fund managers are manipulationg Futures markets to make India sign the deal.

There seems to a total lack of understanding that India circa 2008 is a far stronger country than it ever was in the past 1,000 years.

JMT

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Jun 2008 08:11

shiv wrote:And because of that it has become primarily a political issue with everyone using technical arguments to try and bend viewpoints this way or that.

.... and there seems to be some fear of facing what comes after the deal.

Thanks Shiv, from pointing out that the issues is political now. Although, differ with you on the fear of facing part. The opposition is not fearful of the deal or the US, they simply have a different vision and a different view of what this deal is about, its why's and how's and the risks and rewards of this deal, is my view.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 30 Jun 2008 08:22

Left argument on N-deal absurd: Congress
28 Jun 2008, 2123 hrs IST,PTI

...
...
On Left's claim that the government had not given it the text of the draft IAEA agreement, the Congress spokesman said the Communist parties have "an official summary pertaining to all core issues".

In his virtual point-by-point reply to Left contention, he also rejected the argument that the government, rather than the nuclear deal, should fast-forward the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline deal to mitigate energy crisis. "The pipeline is not an alternative to the nuclear deal," he said.

Seeking to delink inflation from the nuclear deal, Moily said there is no connection between the two.

Karat unsheathes withdrawal sword
JAYANTH JACOB
Monday , June 30 , 2008

New Delhi, June 29: The W-word is out. Prakash Karat today uttered the phrase “withdraw support” for the first time, dumping euphemisms like “serious consequences” that he had been using.

Reading out a politburo statement, the CPM general secretary said his party would dump the Centre if it went ahead with the nuclear deal.

And if the government still persisted and scouted for new allies, the CPM could vote against it in a floor test alongside the BJP and United National Progressive Alliance partners like the Telugu Desam Party, CPM sources said.

“In case the government decides to go ahead with such a harmful agreement, which has no majority support in Parliament, the CPM will withdraw support… in concert with the (other) Left parties,” Karat said.

The politburo statement targeted the “Congress leadership” along with the Prime Minister, two days after Karat had principally blamed Manmohan Singh for the crisis over the deal.

The statement comes a day after Sonia Gandhi told her party to get poll-ready by end-August and the Congress declared there was “no difference” between Singh and the party.

“It is unfortunate that at a time the government should be gearing up to take comprehensive steps to tackle inflation and price rise, the Prime Minister and the Congress leadership are more concerned about fulfilling their commitment made to President Bush,” the politburo said.

Within hours of the statement being issued, the BJP asked the government to seek a floor test in Parliament on the Indo-US deal.

“We will ask the government to face a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha on the nuclear issue following the present political situation,” shadow Prime Minister L.K. Advani told a rally in Rourkela, Orissa.

“We cannot sacrifice our atomic energy and future tests in Pokhran by signing the agreement with the USA.”

The Congress played down the CPM’s withdrawal threat and dismissed its opposition to the deal as “political”.

“It’s nothing new. This has been the Left stand since long,” party spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said.

The politburo, however, insisted that its opposition to the deal was not just ideological — as the Congress has often argued — but also “rational” and claimed that the 123 Agreement didn’t ensure “full civilian nuclear co-operation” or “meet the needs of energy security”.

Sources said the Left would publicise the nine notes exchanged during the past nine meetings of the UPA-Left committee. This, they claimed, would prove that the Centre had not addressed Left concerns on the “123 Agreement, (the) Hyde Act’s implications on the deal, and the safeguards text, which the government said was classified”.

The politburo again stressed that going ahead with the deal would “help the communal forces”, especially with inflation in double digits in an election year.

Congress spokesman Ahmed denied both charges — that pushing the deal would help the BJP, and that the Centre had not done much to check inflation.
...
.....

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jun 2008 08:38

Some random pictures from main stream media about the reaction to the deal
A little depressing that those are not from our northern or western neighbors.
pic 1
pic 2
pic 3
pic 4

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2008 08:52

Tilak wrote: Karat unsheathes withdrawal sword
JAYANTH JACOB
Monday , June 30 , 2008

And if the government still persisted and scouted for new allies, the CPM could vote against it in a floor test alongside the BJP and United National Progressive Alliance partners like the Telugu Desam Party, CPM sources said[/b].

The Communists are such an interesting bunch. They will vote with BJP as above, but..

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/pol ... 32616.html

The CPI leader, invited to address the inaugural session, also said: “Waiting in the wing is the BJP. It is trying to utilise all failings of the UPA government and is making a bid for power. The BJP is a right reactionary communal party.”

India politics has taken over the deal completely

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 30 Jun 2008 09:14

the communists are nothing .. there are far more deadlier creatures lurking in the waters who shall oppose this deal or for that matter any deal with US tooth and nail and until the last drop of their blood. Presently the commies are leading the charge and they seem dedicated to the task as they have figured out correctly that the deal has very little to do with energy.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 30 Jun 2008 09:16

amit wrote:About my point of the BJP claiming ownership of the N-tests and thus guardianship of the deterrent, it's there in the tone used by Sinha in the first clip. It's more a qualitative assessment on my part rather than quantitative.

I'm afraid, its safer and objective to go by what he said and the context, rather than go by the "tone". IMO

As to US not saying that it will not change the Hyde Act etc, as far as I can recollect Condelessa Rice said something to that effect quite a while back.

Nobody from the US Administration has said the words "we will not renegotiate" publicly, I will be glad to eat my words, if you can point me to one.

The Congress acted in a very childish manner in trying to apportion all the credit for the deal to itself, ignoring the BJP's contribution.

No party(excl. Congress,RJD, DMK) is willing to touch the deal, even with a barge pole in the current situation. It's only the PM who is pushing (previous links posted). It has reached a point on no return, PM and Congress can keep all the credit. As of now its US-UPA 123 agreement.

The BJP, initially at least, acted in a very hurt and petulant manner instead of providing constructive opposition and suggestions.

Whether its constructive or not they asked for :
1) A Jekyll Act and was told "It's unconstitutional - Kapil Sibal"
2) Joint Parliamentary Commitee(JPC), to asses the impact of Hyde and 123 - the response was "Its between UPA and the Left"

And off course the less said about the Left parties the better.

What ever they are or said, they have been saying it "openly" from Day 1, Congress knew it (Shakil Ahmed's statement above) and still played the game of brinkmanship to browbeat them?.

I've read some interesting things said about Congress party through the years, but childishness? is not one of them..

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 30 Jun 2008 09:24

CPI - (M) is even bigger threat to the secular fabric of India than Congress. CPI - (M) could not even provide safety and security to a female Muslim writer who dedicated her life to promote secularism. There is a serious disconnect between words and actions of CPI - (M).

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 30 Jun 2008 09:43

Amber G. wrote:The trouble with Rajrang’s thesis, IMO of course, is when the author says”
3) In any case nuclear power will never exceed 5% of India's energy requirements.
“5% “ “Never” huh!! Is this (upper 5% bound ) some sort of fundamental Law of physics , ) or simply upper end of highly non-linear treacherous curve where fission products couldn’t pass through), author does not say. Sorry to be a little skeptic unless one gives some rational – Specially there are nations where this percentage is more than 5%.

Note that, the figure is presented, not as an estimate of some educated guess, or even an opinion, but rather a matter of fact! (and that too with words like "never" and "will")

So when “Thus start” on point 5 and continues on point 8 as

Thus, this deal is a STRATEGIC loss for India.
I am completely lost. Perhaps the author can enlighten me why the upper limit of 5%?

Thanks in advance, and regards. .

You have raised a very good point. I was referrring to 5% of India's primary energy consumption. This is only an approximate guess. I wish I had not even mentioned it because the rest of my arguments do not depend on this figure. As a percent of electricity produced this figure could be a little higher. Item 8 does not depend on item 5.

In any case, now that I have got entangled into details on this topic - let me elaborate my thoughts. Looking at electricity capacity - India today is approaching 150 GW of installed capacity of which nuclear is around 2-3%. In the next 20 years conservatively assuming 7% growth rate - this will reach 600 GW. Even if 10% of this were to be nuclear - 60 GW - would imply that India would construct 50+ nuclear powerplants of 1000 MW equivalent. Does seem like a tall order.

By 2050, the installed capacity of India could be around 2500 GW - more than twice the installed capacity of the US today! - again assuming 7% growth rate. Long before that India's FBR and thorium reactors "would have stepped up to the plate" and this deal will be irrelevant.

Regarding % nuclear power in other countries one should be careful. Here is one article:

http://energypriorities.com/entries/200 ... uclear.php

I agree that there are a few countries where nuclear contributes to more than 10% of the electricity - France, US, Japan .. But then, India's long term electricity needs decades from today (2nd half of the 21st century) would be 20 times that of France and 4 times that of the US - merely going by today's populations. Then comparing India to France will be like comparing the US to a small country like Portugal today.

Again, as I had mentioned I was looking at the forest versus the trees - a few percentages here or there is not the issue.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 30 Jun 2008 09:45

One thing after not able to keep up with these threads is that I do not get what is this classified business about text of the deal when it suppose to be civilian deal and not military one.

Is this deal better than the one chinese have with US?

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 30 Jun 2008 10:01

amit wrote:That's the biggest tragedy for the nuclear deal. It's become a political hot potatoe. Otherwise how can one explain the kind of language that's been used against the deal proponents.

Its a very strange correlation, but you seem to be hinting that all the opponents of the deal were taking a partisan(ie.political) line. And the proponents were not?.

Another thing, that "kind of language", came from both the sides + (ridiculing and questioning somebody's intelligence) + trolling+ self denigration and the people who were offended were involved "then" have ~patched up, and moved on. AFAIK. Unless you know somebody who hasn't, then it's better for to settle it now?.. rather than carrying on with this never ending calls for sympathy, from people who weren't a party to it. IMO

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Jun 2008 10:02

enqyoob wrote: Depressing.

Even children have reason to oppose

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 10:08

Acharya wrote:
enqyoob wrote: Depressing.
Even children have reason to oppose

It seems, Acharya ji, those opposing the deal don't think twice in using innocent childern to further their goal/viewpoint.

What's with that dummy "nuclear tipped" missile with the US flag in the background?

Is it a (fire)cracker for childern to play with during Diwali? And what's this with an arms deal with the US?

Why am I reminded of 14 year-olds with a turban on their head but no beard yet, holding Kalaniskovs and a knife to cut of heads of infdels?

Maybe the whole thing, including the picture, is a grand conspiracy hatched by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 30 Jun 2008 10:09

whenever I think about this deal this is what immidiately comes to mind.

http://www.bible-thoughts.com/luke-41-1 ... jesus.html

The proverbial 'Pot of Gold' and the 'Kingdoms of the earth' are all on offer here as well. We are willing to hold hands with a genocidal power in order to satisfy our greed for the proverbial 'Pot of Gold'.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Jun 2008 10:10

Dont be childish like the Congress party

rocky · Post by **rocky** » 30 Jun 2008 10:14

Would it be erroneous to conclude - that the INC's refusal to give the actual text of the IAEA agreement to the CPIM - confirms that CPIM is the trojan horse? If so, what could be in the text that China isn't likely to know about, given that China is currently a board member of the IAEA?

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 30 Jun 2008 10:16

rocky, US Congress knows what's in the text. China knows what is in the text.

It is just Indians that do not know about it.

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 10:18

Tilak wrote:
amit wrote:About my point of the BJP claiming ownership of the N-tests and thus guardianship of the deterrent, it's there in the tone used by Sinha in the first clip. It's more a qualitative assessment on my part rather than quantitative.
I'm afraid, its safer and objective to go by what he said and the context, rather than go by the "tone". IMO

As to US not saying that it will not change the Hyde Act etc, as far as I can recollect Condelessa Rice said something to that effect quite a while back.
Nobody from the US Administration has said the words "we will not renegotiate" publicly, I will be glad to eat my words, if you can point me to one.

Tilak,

There seems to be a disconnect here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I had written that Yashwant said US would not ammend or withdraw the Hyde Act. You first disagreed and then found the sound byte.

You wanted to know if the US has said the same. I pointed out that Condelezza had said, something to the effect, that the deal would be within the parameters of the US law. That implies that the US would not "change" the Hyde Act. That has nothing to do with "renegotiate".

Also "renegotiate" would seem to imply that after the "renegotiation" India would be able to wrangle a "better" deal. The US has, certainly not given any indication to that effect. The only people gung ho about that is the BJP and some members on BRF who seem to think that India has all the time in the world to tie up its energy security.

As to being objective, I agree with you entirely. However, the objectivity must go both ways. (Please note this is a general comment and not meant for you - you are IMO very objective in your posts.)

I haven't seen much objectivity in many of those who trash the Congress for daring to sign a game changing deal.

Cheers!

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 10:20

Raju wrote:rocky, US Congress knows what's in the text. China knows what is in the text.
It is just Indians that do not know about it.

Raju,

Can you please substantiate how you are certain that China knows what's in the text?

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 10:21

Acharya wrote:Dont be childish like the Congress party

Maybe being childish is a part of the grand conspiracy.

Cheers!

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 30 Jun 2008 10:22

rocky wrote:Would it be erroneous to conclude - that the INC's refusal to give the actual text of the IAEA agreement to the CPIM - confirms that CPIM is the trojan horse? If so, what could be in the text that China isn't likely to know about, given that China is currently a board member of the IAEA?

Precisely, but it's secret they say at the same time a "draft" as well as "frozen". As if nobody was ever going to see it. Knowing very well that at NSG, every country which wants to torpedo it, could actually do it in deed as a consensus in involved. 123 was also kept as a state secret and what more GOI had to sync their wathces to EST, before releasing it. Even then both the versions differed..

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 30 Jun 2008 10:25

ofcourse, China can know it either from IAEA or directly from the US Congress members itself.
there is a huge China caucus in the US Congress who are on PRC payroll.

So only people who do not know details of IAEA agreement are CPI(M) and Indian public.

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 10:37

Tilak wrote: Its a very strange correlation, but you seem to be hinting that all the opponents of the deal were taking a partisan(ie.political) line. And the proponents were not?.

Tilak in just my previous post I pointed out that IMO your posts are objective. I hope I'm correct.

Where does calling the nuclear deal a political "hot potatoe" imply that the opponents are playing politics and the proponents are not? It's interesting in only your previous post directed at me you expressed surprise that I called the Congress' actions "childish"? Did you infer I used the word "childish" to imply innocence of children who know no wrong?

Another thing, that "kind of language", came from both the sides + (ridiculing and questioning somebody's intelligence) + trolling+ self denigration and the people who were offended were involved "then" have ~patched up, and moved on. AFAIK. Unless you know somebody who hasn't, then it's better for to settle it now?.. rather than carrying on with this never ending calls for sympathy, from people who weren't a party to it. IMO

I've been following the nuclear thread for just as long as you have been. And again you seem to have misconstrued what I said. It's one thing to lampoon a fellow BRfite and then be lampooned in return.

It's another thing altogether to call the PM of the nation traitor and worse and question the integrity of top scientists. I don't seem to recall the leaders of the BJP being described with the same colourful adjectives by the so called deal proponents. It's that language I refered to when I said political campaigning language.

And just for record I hold a grudge against no one.

I'll leave the last word about this to you.

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 10:38

Raju wrote:ofcourse, China can know it either from IAEA or directly from the US Congress members itself.
there is a huge China caucus in the US Congress who are on PRC payroll.

So only people who do not know details of IAEA agreement are CPI(M) and Indian public.

You forgot to add the BJP's name.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 30 Jun 2008 10:42

they have been included with Indian public.

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Jun 2008 10:46

Raju wrote:they have been included with Indian public.

So now let's see.

The political map of India:

a) Congress + allies = UPA (in support of the deal)

b) Left + Jholawalas + wanna be intellectuals + EJs +... (against the deal)

c) Indian public + NDA allies (against the deal signed by Congress but game for one signed by the Indian public).

Hmm, just about sums it up right?

But I'm confused where does someone like Bal Thackery fit in?

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 30 Jun 2008 10:51

Congress itself is not fully supportive of the deal. People like Pranab Mukherjee and A. K. Antony are at best ambivalent.
they are just doing what is unavoidable inorder to follow party line.
the old guard in Congress is against this deal.

b) Left + Jholawalas + wanna be intellectuals + EJs +... (against the deal)

EJs will be pro-US. Why should they bother about Indian Interests.