Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jul 2008 07:07

rajrang,

I think a new poll needs to be started.
Is/should BRF fair to leftists?
Should BRF create an inclusive environment for Leftists?

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 04 Jul 2008 07:20

I personally think (educated guess) that this deal will give India about 50 GW of nuclear power installed during the next 20 years - maybe 100 GW over 30 years - because beyond that thorium reactors shoudl be available (going by statements in this thread) and this deal will be irrelevant.

By 2050, India should have an installed capacity of 2500 GW, by 2070 10,000 GW (all assuming approximate 7% annual compounded growth rate)- compared to 1200 GW or so for the U.S. today. Then the 50 GW gain (or even if it is 100 or 150 GW over 30 years), is trivial in the long term compared to figures like 2500 GW and 10,000 GW.

In any case market forces would have found an alternative to the above 50 or 100 GW of nuclear power - possibly at a cheaper cost - in the absence of the deal.

Some of the leaders of India in 2050 are probably in college today, while many of the decision makers of India of 2070 are probably already born. So we are really talking of the lifetimes of todays children - not some hypothetical time centuries from today which may be difficult to visualize.

This is long term strategic thinking - something Western powers and China are good at. I wonder if Western powers have convinced India to accept strategic lossES for a small (questionable) tactical gain. One strategic loss is an Indian signature formally accepting a status different (inferior?) to NWS countries. This represents a slap in India's face - (talking of loss of face for some Indian leaders if the deal did not go through).

Also India has made fantastic progress in the field of nuclear research (FBR, thorium reactors etc.) inspite of embargoes. India does not need the hep of the West to continue to make such progress in the next few decades. Maybe the West needs Indian nuclear talent for their progress.

As a respectable country India must not sign an international treaty with a decision to break it in the future if circumstances change.

I hope I am missing something here and India is really making a good decision for its own good and the good of the world - since in future decades India is destined to become an economic super power. No one gains by trapping a future super power into an inferior status.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 04 Jul 2008 07:26

So CIA and Education in lefty schools are linked

The Lord said always read the fine print!

"What the left hand giveth the right hand taketh"

The main question still would be : Is the Deal beneficial to India and her interests ?

It is for sure beneficial to some Indians and some Indian interests for sure, Names have already named.

But lets be clear on one thing.

Those who propose deal and oppose the deal are both patriotic no questions.

The only difference is the proponents have
Given up Indian capabilities to generate bijlee ( we need CNC etc etc

).
Are not finding any cost benefits in funding the current AEC and DAE and also have not much confidence.
There are lot of data points on this score and our PM is the most experienced in right sizing tirelessly the DAE AEC Uranium corporation etc.
The pro folks have all kinds of answers to not mine(d) Our business of Uranium ,because of state laws and likely agitations in states (of ours), but are confident of US and its poodels supplying U for us to make UPS (uniterrupted power supply).
In simple terms we cant go it alone period in this global village. No Testing is required we may never use any stuff why waste money, sound logic in terms of economics.

The opponents on the contrary say
Our chaps are competent to do it alone
we dont need technology from others , if it comes well and good (like DRDO made Agni, ISRO made PSLV, GSLV cryo etc).
We may have to test in uncertain world why give ity away, we can mine U and also use in the interim other sources of energy.
Ambani like people have found gas every where and have raised billions of dollars in IPO, their gas based energy might be coming on stream/steam very soon, so why rush into un known waters.

Ambinis can find Uranium given a chance in our own back yards etc.
Might be surprised that thsi sounds like real congress agenda of Swadeshi as proposed by Original Gandhi (not rip off kinds) and Bhaba.

Either ways its bonanza time for business no?
And all are patriotic and doing a bit to the country.

Not relevant but felt like sharing if not wealth, wealth of information.

"Public money is like Holy waters , everybody helps himself to it" 15th century Italian proverb.
May hit close to home in some ruling rajmata's house.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jul 2008 07:35

Spinster wrote: Ambinis can find Uranium given a chance in our own back yards etc.
Might be surprised that thsi sounds like real congress agenda of Swadeshi as proposed by Original Gandhi (not rip off kinds) and Bhaba.

One can give Cuddapah tract to Anil and NE to Mukesh ! This alone might obviate the need for the deal. Since its they both who are feuding and tearing UPA apart!

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 04 Jul 2008 07:36

ramana wrote:rajrang,

I think a new poll needs to be started.
Is/should BRF fair to leftists?
Should BRF create an inclusive environment for Leftists?

I agree with you - I think an inclusive environment should be created for all parties.

On a related note, India's great democracy is inclusive - key leaders in India often come from minority backgrounds - especially the present decision makers (PM, Mrs Sonia Gandhi). Not many Western democracies can boast of such inclusiveness and political leadership opportunites for minorities and women.

It would be nice if BR can also practise the same inclusiveness that is the norm in India's culture.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 04 Jul 2008 07:38

Again, let us not forget that the Nuclear Suppliers Group was created by the US to punish India for its nuclear programme. Our ability to influence the NSG is severely limited. We do not know what sort of waiver the US is going to seek from the NSG. Clearly, any waiver will have to be in strict conformity with the relevant US legislation known as the Hyde Act.

Also, by the time the NSG waiver is sought, as far as India is concerned, there is a fait accompli in that we have tied ourselves hands and feet, in perpetuity, to the IAEA. Even if the NSG is waiver is unpalatable, we can't revisit the IAEA safeguards agreement or seek correctives.

Utter nonsense.

If the NSG waiver says things unacceptable to India i.e mention of test ban etc. then we simply won't buy any reactors and also not go through with the separation, period. The IAEA does not have an army or an airforce to enforce anything.

This is scare mongering at its best. Make out NSG and IAEA to be more than what they are.

How is this any different from the paranoid rantings of Xerox Khan who just said IAEA is a Jewish agency?

If the NSG waiver has any crappy condition, India can simply walk away and tell the US it reneged on its bargain. I'm sure the Chinese would get one of the pipsqueak countries to try to insert Hyde like conditions within the NSG but India has the final say in accepting those.

To put it simply, the NSG and 123 will have to clear before India does any physical separation. Sure we are shutting down Cirus but its all based on two-party commitments. If Unkil tries to screw us after we take good faith actions, then he will have to live with a pissed off India which would be no worse off than it already was.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 04 Jul 2008 07:41

ramana wrote:rajrang,

I think a new poll needs to be started.
Is/should BRF fair to leftists?
Should BRF create an inclusive environment for Leftists?

Ramana garu, hope you were being facetious only.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 04 Jul 2008 07:43

How about being inclusive and fair to nationalists who think that US is not 100% evil or 100% anti-India?

Atleast not calling them CIA agents or lobbyists of certain mysterious groups.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 04 Jul 2008 08:17

Rangudu wrote:How about being inclusive and fair to nationalists who think that US is not 100% evil or 100% anti-India?

Atleast not calling them CIA agents or lobbyists of certain mysterious groups.

I agree.

The whole problem started with Lou Doubts programme blaming Lobbyists for everything wrong.

Lobbyist like communalist have got a bad rap.
Lobbyists are like power brokers they can be honest and make decent living nothing wrong in that. Most lawyers I come in contact in my work do that, they are ADR, adjudicators, judges or negotiators. Only sad case is we had a Senior policeman (NSA Naryanan) to negotiate with high power lawyers from SD.

Similarly communalists in US take care of the communities in which they live. In india we have communinalists only from majority community? no

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 04 Jul 2008 08:22

The IAEA does not have an army or an airforce to enforce anything.

Oh my gosh, then how did CIA plant all kind of device in Saddam's country, Ritter was what, only difference was he was speaking the truth.

IAEA does not have army hence the "International community" lends a gentle helping hand. Read the columbia rescue it was headed by NGO team to do the trick....

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 04 Jul 2008 08:24

John Snow wrote:
Rangudu wrote:How about
Only sad case is we had a Senior policeman (NSA Naryanan) to negotiate with high power lawyers from SD.

Very important point!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jul 2008 08:56

The deal will get done. Samajwadi Party has come out in support of it, hiding behind APJ Kalam. Hats off to Manmohan Singh. He has shown strong leadership here. He did not throw in the towel, persevered and finally is getting his way in making sure that the deal, which is vitally important to India's national interest is done.

The BJP should stop playing politics ,..........

All three are playing politics. None are doing any thing in the true interest of India. MMS should have been absolutely transparent in his dealings to be above politics, his threat/s to resign, push-pull within his own party (which seems strange that he may not even have enough support within his own party!!), and now to accommodate those that he despised - politics - as usual. It happens everywhere. Even Bush had to succumb to politics, else he would not have got the Hyde Act.

Now back to counting atoms. At last count some 26% were lost between them and their cousins.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2008 09:10

ramana wrote:rajrang,

I think a new poll needs to be started.
Is/should BRF fair to leftists?
Should BRF create an inclusive environment for Leftists?

This question reminds me of my childhood and my Macaulayite school education.

I belong t a group of people whose school studies did not includes subjects like ""civics" that other schools had. We were (ahem) following a British system. My main knowledge of communists that I took out of school was "Commies are bad" and what MAD magazine taught me - i.e it you write "Teacher is a commie" on the blackboard - teacher would et arrested. This was obviously a satirical piece on the view of commies in the late 50s in the US - but heck my life as a schoolboy was just like the life of any American boy in the comic books. Dad went to office. We had bikes to play with, we had a car and fridge and we used to fly to places (until the economy finally caught up with my father). We only did not have TV.

So when I joined college - one of the first things I saw was a communist party meeting held outside the college campus. I was troubled by this. To my ignorant American tuned schoolboy mindset communism had to be illegal. I stole a party flag and put it in my room as a symbol of my rebellion in an era when Woodstock had just occurred. When a hostel employee saw the flag asked me if I was a member of the party - I got worried and chickened out because I thought he was going to have me arrested - communism being illegal and all. It was years before I discovered the truth.

If the mindset exists for such a poll - a poll like that would not be out of place at all.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 04 Jul 2008 09:28

Rangudu wrote: If the NSG waiver says things unacceptable to India i.e mention of test ban etc. then we simply won't buy any reactors and also not go through with the separation, period. The IAEA does not have an army or an airforce to enforce anything.

Maybe I am missing something here. What is it that the IAEA could have enforced if in the
hypothetical case it had both an army and an airforce. ?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 04 Jul 2008 09:32

Any ism is bad if its not spelled as Nationalism,

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Jul 2008 10:43

SP circus with MMS

http://www.despardes.com/in/cartoons/default.html

Nayak · Post by **Nayak** » 04 Jul 2008 16:40

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/UPA_ ... 197193.cms

NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will meet US President George W Bush on July nine on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Hokkaido in Japan when he is expected to discuss the progress in the nuclear deal after sorting out domestic political problems over the agreement.

Briefing reporters on the Prime Minister's three-day visit, Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, however, did not give details of what they would discus but said the government would like to go ahead with the deal "as soon as we can" but it was not possible to give a timeframe for it.

"We will go ahead with it as soon as we can. Once we take a decision to approach the IAEA, we will let you know," he said adding the US was committed to getting India exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group for nuclear commerce under the July, 2005 civil nuclear cooperation agreement.

Menon said India was in touch with members of the NSG and it would proceed on the deal "as soon as we can". Many of the world leaders who would be attending the Hokkaido summit are also members of the NSG, he added.

Asked about US Congressman Gary Ackerman's comments that time was running out for the deal, he said he would like to get into the issue of timeframe.

"We would like to go ahead with it. We go ahead with it as soon as we can," he added.

To a question on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, Menon said India would continue discussions with the Iran and Pakistan to ensure that the project was commercially and economically viable and to ensure its security. Bilateral discussions with the two countries would also continue, he said.

On the sidelines of the summit for which he starts here on Monday, several bilateral discussions are scheduled for the Prime Minister with leaders of the G-8 and those from the outreach countries like China, Brazil and South Africa.

The G-8-G-5 meeting in Japan will review the Heilegendamm dialogue process where issues like climate change and energy security will come up for discussion.

On the multilateral side, the leaders will work on an outcome document that will again cover issues like energy and food security and climate change.

India has been attending the G-8 outreach meetings from 2003 and an important outcome of the last year's G-8 summit in Heiligendamm in German was the initiative to launch a high-level dialogue between the G8 and the five outreach countries to be completed by the next year's summit in Italy.

Issues covered by the dialogue are innovation in terms of technology transfer, energy efficiency and development.

Multilateral meeting will focus on the agreed framework on climate change after starting from Rio, Kyoto and Bali summits and the long term goals.

vina · Post by **vina** » 04 Jul 2008 17:57

ramana wrote: are the core of the INC and used to shelter in the INC umbrella with the WMI holding it up. Now the price that SP is demanding could shake the whole umbrella structure for he wants national status. In the UNPA, CBN is shaken up with the adamant attitude of SP. For starters as to what can SP do, he has put Kalam saheb in the sectrain bucket and no one is protesting. One who was known as Kalam Iyer! Once again UP has become the key. The NRI groups are rallying to SP aid (thats what Amar singh was doing in US for three weeks) as they think its now or never. INC wanted SP support in case Left withdraws and the price is too steep for it might mean irrelevance in the long run.

I think what the congress is doing is absolutely right thing. I applaud Manmohan Singh for showing leadership on the Nuke Deal. This one is something that is so absolutely important to India's entire future, the Prime Minister clearly recognizes that this absolutely needs to be done and that it is his sacred duty to get it done, even if the govt falls in the bargain. Full marks to Sonia Gandhi on supporting him to the hilt and not wavering on this as well. It is far too easy to waver /compromise with supreme national interest for the fish and loaves of office and hope to save the govt. Sonia Gandhi hasn't done that and they are calling the left's bluff.

Also strategically, the Congress is doing the absolute right thing. The road to power in Delhi is via UP and Bihar. Congress has a strong alliance in Bihar with Lalu and it needs a similar alliance in UP. Lets face reality. Congress in UP has been reduced to a status like Cong in TN. A sizeable vote share , that could possibly swing the fortune in favor of someone, but never enough to win alone. BSP /Mayawati are mortal enemies of congress, just like Deve Gowda is in Karnataka. They are going for the same, social base and BSP's entire growth is at the expense of the Congress. BSP is a parasitic vine that drinks from sap of the Congress tree , continuously weakening it and eventually killing it. The only person Congress can ally with is Samajwadi Party, which gets it's vote from a social base which never voted for Congress in any case!.. Congress CANNOT ally with BSP, but is sure as hell can ally with the SP. In fact, I would go as far to say that SP and Congress are natural allies , not SP and BSP as the JNU "subaltern" studies wallahs would have you think. They both need each other. I am glad that this entire nuclear deal is leading to a realigning of India's politics.

I think it is a great think. If Congress comes back to power because of this, they will absolutely deserve it, because they will have proven that they think first and foremost about India's national interest and not about spiting GW Bush or about "Imperialism" or some woolly headed "ideology" / China, like the cretins in the left.

It will be great if Indian politics coalesce around two large "umberella" formations., one to the left and other to the right of center. That way tiny groups like JDS get massive leverage and do tremendous damage like what happened in the paralaysis in governance in Bangalore for the past 4 years or so. It is to the credit of the UPA, that despite having "supporters" like the left , they still managed to have some semblence of governance for the past 4 years , and not the Karnataka like situation.

If the 123 deal leads to Congress coming back in the next elections.. So be it. It will be well earned !

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jul 2008 18:55

India left gives nuclear deadline
Fresh record for Indian inflation

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jul 2008 19:07

US committed to getting India NSG nod: Menon
India has time till September to clear nuclear deal: US lawmaker
India likely to clinch IAEA pact by mid-July

Proliferation and the US-India Treaty

June 15th, 2008 • According to prominent American politicians, nuclear disarmament is not a luxury but a necessity. These politicians wrote an opinion piece earlier this year in the Wall Street Journal[1], arguing for active steps to be taken towards nuclear disarmament, a message with which many will agree in principle. The only question is by what means this can be achieved. There remain, after all, thousands of nuclear weapons operational, while the peaceful use of nuclear technology, supported by the opinion article's authors, itself presents a proliferation danger. This emerged from the laborious negotiations around the nuclear treaty between India and the United States, a treaty which is intended to make possible the development of the country's nuclear industry while at the same time offering no support to India's nuclear strike capacity. A difficult, if not impossible goal, writes Karel Koster.

Proliferation danger

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is under threat, an opinion which is widely shared. The last review conference, in 2005, ended in failure, when participants could not even agree on a final declaration. The meeting failed because in the last instance the nuclear weapons states, under the leadership of the Americans' unilateral diplomacy, were unwilling to take any real steps in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Even support for a previously adopted programme of such measures, the so-called "13 steps", is now up in the air. Such unshakeability meant that any chance of heightening the possibility of agreements for disarmament and non-proliferation being reached on the basis of a broad political consensus was torpedoed.

Even before these events, the coming into force of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty of 1996 had been halted by the refusal of the US and China, amongst other countries, to ratify it.

At the basis of each of these failures lay the same mistrust between the nuclear weapons states and the rest of the world. In the NPT it was, after all, laid down that the five recognised nuclear powers (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) in compliance with Article VI of the treaty, would take serious steps towards nuclear disarmament. In reality, all of them maintain substantial nuclear strike capacities and will do so for the foreseeable future. This is making the non-nuclear weapons states exceptionally unhappy. Most have nevertheless held to the treaty's specifications, the most important of which was to distance themselves from any military application of nuclear energy. This has been overseen with varying success by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), already half a century old. At the same time full use is made of Article IV, which guarantees access to nuclear technology. Three countries stood outside the NPT – India, Pakistan and Israel – refusing to sign it and developing their own nuclear weapons. In addition, in April 2003 NPT member state North Korea left the treaty.[2].

The risks of the proliferation of nuclear arms technology had as its consequence that the nuclear weapons states in their disarmament proposals laid the emphasis primarily on such dangers. How could one prevent signatory states from furnishing themselves with all of the necessary technology, exercising their right under Article X to resign from the treaty, and then going off and building their own bomb. From the moment the treaty came into force there was an inherent contradiction in relation to the nuclear question. In fact, it was already there in the institution of the IAEA, established in the 1950s to promote the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. At the same time, respect for the treaty was to be verified by means of inspections of the technology supplied to ensure that it was not being used for military ends.

The established rules have not always been followed. The nuclear industry of all three informal nuclear armed states - Israel, India and Pakistan – which formed the basis for their nuclear weapon arsenals was in each case developed with the aid of a number of industrialised countries, with officially sanctioned supplies, for example from Canada to India[3] and from France and the United States to Israel.[4] Better known is the illegal work done by the atom spy Abdul Qadeer Khan, who delivered nuclear know-how to Pakistan from the Netherlands.[5]

At the end of the Cold War in 1990 emphasis switched from the international policy of nuclear disarmament to the prevention of the spread of technologies for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The rules for inspections by the IAEA were, because of serious breaches, tightened up by means of an "additional inspection protocol", which is however far from being universally applied. Following the attacks of 2001, measures were also sharpened against the possible proliferation of WMDs by so-called 'non-state-connected actors". In 2004 Security Council Resolution 1540 was also adopted, making further legislation against such proliferation obligatory.[6]

The nuclear weapons states and their allies did nevertheless take some far-reaching steps, which did not however come to fruition within the disarmament process of the various international organisations. The Netherlands directed its attention to the weapons' delivery system, proposing an international Code of Conduct against Ballistic Rocket Proliferation. This came into force at the end of 2002. [7]

In 2003 the US established the Proliferation Security Initiative, an informal cooperation network primarily consisting of western powers and their allies, the aim being to intercept any technology suitable for the manufacture of WMDs.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, set up in reaction to the Indian nuclear test of 1974, is a cooperation network of all countries who can supply nuclear technology. Rules have been laid down and lists constructed of technology which must be subject to strict export controls. The member states meet regularly in order to discuss the enforcement of these rules. [8]

The United States also acts unilaterally, entirely outside international legislation. The core of this policy was the American pre-emptive doctrine of 2002 (National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction[9]). This doctrine laid the emphasis on the waging of preventative war, including the possible use of nuclear weapons, against countries threatening to develop WMDs. This became a rationale for the waging of wars of aggression, such as the one against Iraq in 2003. With this step the monopoly position of the established nuclear weapons states was underlined. Moreover, a number of the international treaties discussed above were characterised by the fact that they were supported primarily by industrialised, for the most part western states. That meant that implementation of these agreements quickly acquired the character of a confrontation between a nuclear elite and the countries dependent on their nuclear supplies.

The US-India Treaty (“123 Treaty”)

An important and current example of the problems connected to the question of proliferation is the US-India Treaty for nuclear cooperation, the subject in 2005 of a provisional agreement. In August 2007 the two countries signed, after intensive negotiations, the definitive agreement for cooperation between their governments regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the so-called 123 Agreement.[10]

This marked the beginning of a lengthy ratification process that at the time of writing is far from complete. The reasons for this lie in India's exceptional nuclear status: a de facto nuclear weapon state that is not defined as such. In the negotiations over the NPT it was, remember, only those countries which were, on January 1 1967, in possession of nuclear weapons and had performed a nuclear weapons test which were defined as nuclear weapons states.

Those countries which have not signed the NPT and yet are nuclear weapons states - India, Pakistan and Israel - thus fall in a twilight zone. India began the development of an independent nuclear industry directly after the independence of the country itself in 1947 and has since its first nuclear test in 1974 had available a nuclear strike capacity. This was confirmed in 1998 by a new series of nuclear tests. Within a few weeks, Pakistan had also performed nuclear tests, and the regional nuclear arms race became fact.

A permanent problem for India was the limited availability of nuclear technology and raw materials. Its own stocks of nuclear fuel were insufficient for the maintenance of a nuclear strike capacity and the planned build-up of the nuclear industry. For this, the import of both nuclear technology and nuclear fuel would be necessary. Yet this was put into question by the existence of strict international rules overseen by the above-mentioned Nuclear Suppliers Group[11], of which every supplier of nuclear technology was a member. This grouping, which takes decisions regarding export directives on a unanimous basis, must approve the US-India treaty. This would only be made possible by ascribing an exceptional status to the treaty, as the American government has sought to do, which means that at the very minimum it would have to include a safeguard agreement between India and the IAEA.

If the Nuclear Suppliers Group agreement comes to pass, a non-signatory of the NPR would be recognised de facto as a nuclear weapons state, and 'bad behaviour' would be rewarded. While the rest of the world to a large extent follows the rules laid down in the NPT, permission would have been given for a country which abjures that treaty to develop its nuclear industry still further. This stands in stark contrast to the treatment meted out to the NPT member state Iran, whose nuclear industry is under discussion because of suspicions about a possible nuclear weapons programme.

There is, however, a more practical argument against the 123 Treaty: the technology and materials supplied could be used indirectly to support the nuclear weapons programme. Nuclear fuel intended for the civil programme controlled by the IAEA could free up India's own existing stocks of uranium which could then be used for the nuclear weapons arsenal.

A further concern relates to the consequences for the treaty of any new nuclear test by India. India is seeking a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuels as well as the option to conduct nuclear tests in the future. This would be possible through the separation, referred to in the treaty, of the military section of the Indian nuclear infrastructure from the civil.

Only in March did India and the IAEA come to an agreement in which this question was settled. Once this is approved by the Board of Governors of the IAEA, the NSG must give its unanimous permission for an exception to its rules on the export of nuclear technology. The comprehensive safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA would be a necessary condition for such an exception to be allowed. Implicitly permission would thus be given for the continued operation of the military sector of the Indian nuclear programme. For Dutch politics the NSG is of interest because the Netherlands is a member of this body and must therefore approve the exception specified for India.

Before the safeguard agreement is presented to the executive council of the IAEA, India's political leadership must itself agree to the treaty. At the end of June , this was by no means certain. The Left, a cooperating group of left parties which underwrites the government's majority in parliament, has publicly declared that they do not agree with the treaty, as has the opposition BJP. Some Indian commentators think, however, that a minority government can nevertheless take the matter further, persevering via the IAEA executive council and the NSG even if the Left withdraws its support from the government. Another scenario involves the Indian government gaining support from another party, the Samajwadi Party, to compensate for the loss of the Left votes in parliament. Elections as of this time would be inconvenient for Congress, the major government party, because of socio-economic issues which will cost them dearly at the polls. A last-minute agreement, without leading to a loss of parliamentary support, despite being thought very unlikely by most commentators, may still be pushed through by mid-July. It will then come down to the decision-making at the NSG. The ground there has already been prepared through intensive lobbying of the member states by the French government, on the look-out for lucrative nuclear contracts with the Indian government.

Because, after approval by the NSG, the US Congress must also in the end give its approval, the American government has repeatedly urged haste. Otherwise there is a good chance that the treaty will become a campaign issue in the coming American presidential election. A further crucial element is shaped by the negotiations between Iran and Pakistan over the building of a gas pipeline which would provide an alternative source of energy to the development of the nuclear sector. The American legislation which makes the 123 Treaty possible forbids just such contracts with Iran, a condition unacceptable to the Indian government.[12]

The position of the Netherlands

The Dutch government has not committed itself to any particular standpoint regarding the US-India treaty. In answer to questions from SP Members of Parliament Harry van Bommel and Krista van Velzen[13], Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen stated that the treaty could make India's own limited stocks of uranium available for the building of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless he did not believe that this was a matter involving nuclear weapon proliferation. The government has also declared that it had argued both for India's accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and for a moratorium on the production of fissile materials (the ‘fiss-ban’ or Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty). These statements did not, however, represent a specification of the Netherlands' position in the NSG. The safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA would be studied by the minister, who also promised to keep parliament informed on the matter. [14] As for the remaining problems highlighted by the American experts, amongst which was the need to exclude the possibility that India would use the treaty as grounds to build up a reserve of nuclear fuel, as well as possible sanctions in the event of renewed nuclear weapons tests, on these matters the minister had nothing to say. [15] It is also abundantly clear that if Parliament wants to continue playing any significant role, then the content of the safeguard agreement between the IAEA and India must be disclosed in good time before the Nuclear Suppliers Group meets to discuss the matter.

In the NSG more opposition can certainly be expected. New Zealand and other member states would also hesitate and would want to attach a series of demands to any stipulated exception. Amongst these would be the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and support for a treaty forbidding the manufacture of fissile material.[16]

Internationally managed nuclear fuel stocks

The relationship between nuclear energy for peaceful and for military purposes, which forms the background to the developments described above, is of crucial importance. Given that Article IV of the NPT gives all signatories unlimited access to nuclear technology, this at the same time means that they have also in principle the possibility to use this technology for the building of nuclear weapons. That is the case if a country is in possession of a uranium enrichment installation, as is true of Brazil and Iran. The uranium enriched in such a facility can be used for both peaceful purposes – if it is low-enriched – and nuclear weapons – if it is highly enriched. The IAEA safeguard agreements are aimed, among other things, at controlling these enrichment processes. This leaves, however, the possibilities already listed above open for a country to first of all develop its nuclear technology and then to withdraw from the treaty and make a nuclear bomb. Proposals from IAEA Director General Mohamed Al Baradei and many others[17] foresee the creation of an internationally managed enrichment installation capable of guaranteeing the delivery of uranium for peaceful purposes. The Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom stand in an advantageous position in relation to this, as they are joint owners of an existing high-value enrichment installation, known as Urenco. It would be commercially attractive to fulfil, or jointly fulfil, the role of a centralised and internationally recognised nuclear fuel supplier. The three countries made an offer on this basis to the IAEA in the autumn of 2007. [18] There are, however, a number of catches to this: the signatories of the NPT are exceptionally sensitive regarding the rights accorded them under Article IV. Iran's prickly attitude regarding its enrichment capacity is certainly no exception. The guarantees given by the host countries to continue supplying fuels, even if, for example, political pressure is exercised for the suspension of such deliveries, is the sensitive point. Given that it is unthinkable that any international institution could avoid such political pressure, the various proposals will continue to be the subject of intensive negotiations. It is, after all, not entirely fanciful to imagine that the international supply of nuclear fuel should become an instrument of political power, managed by the nuclear weapons states and their allies. The development of the Americans' Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) can also be seen from this point of view. [19]

Towards a nuclear weapons free world?

Approval of the existing treaty by voting to support the granting to India of an exceptional status would send the world an extremely bad message. The Netherlands, after all, likes to see itself as taking intends to take the lead in the diplomatic circuit when it comes to nuclear disarmament. Foreign Minister Verhagen has just recently declared his support for nuclear disarmament.[20] He could give content to proof of this support by means of concrete measures: not only by organising opposition to approval of the US-India treaty in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, but also in regard to the NATO nuclear weapons tasks which the Dutch Royal Air Force continues to carry out from its base in Volkel.[21]

Karel Koster works for the SP Research Bureau. This article first appeared in Dutch in a slightly different form in the Internationale Spectator, June 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

1. Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, Nunn,"Toward a nuclear-free world", Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan 2008;
2. See Jean du Preez and William Potter "North Korea 's Withdrawal From the NPT: A Reality Check";
3. David Martin "Exporting Disaster ~ The Cost of Selling CANDU Reactors", Nuclear Awareness Project for the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Ontario, Canada November 1996;
4. Frank Barnaby "Israel , the Bomb & Peace in the Middle East" (1993);
5. Joop Boer, Henk van der Keur, Karel Koster and Frank Slijper "A.Q. Khan, Urenco and the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology: The symbiotic relation between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons" 4 May 2004;
6. "Security Council decides all states shall act to prevent proliferation of mass destruction weapons"
UN Press Release SC/8076; 28/04/2004;
7. "100 staten achter Haagse gedragscode tegen verspreiding ballistische raketten" (100 states behind Code of Conduct against spread of ballistic rockets" 20-12-2002, Press Release, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Suppliers_Group;
9. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction;
10. Read this for the text;
11. http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/
12. "Gas pipeline tops Iran-India agenda", Financial Times 29/04/2008;
13. Answered on 29th Aug.2007 and 4th Oct. by Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen;
14. "Verslag Algemeen Overleg vaste commissie Buitenlandse zaken" (Report of the General Meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs), 12th Feb.2008;
15. Daryl G.Kimball, "Contradictions Still Plague U.S.-Indian Nuclear Deal", Arms Control Today, March 2008;
16. "NSG drafting exemption conditions anticipating India-IAEA agreement", Nucleonics Week 13 March 2008
17. See, eg, "MULTILATERAL APPROACHES TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE; EXPERT GROUP REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY", Feb.2005 http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicatio ... 05_web.pdf
18. Letter to Parliament regarding the attempt with Germany and the UK to contribute to the making of agreements in the framework of the IAEA over guaranteed delivery of nuclear fuel, (in Dutch), 12 Nov 2007;
19. http://www.gnep.energy.gov/;
20. Speech (in English) by Verhagen to the Atlantic Commission, 27-03-2008;
21. "De Nederlandse kernwapentaak – tijd voor afschaffing" (The Dutch Nuclear Weapons Task – time to end it) by Captain Jan van de Griendt, Internationale Spectator, May 2007;

Are we wasting time on a dead nuke deal?
IAEA pact waiting for political call: Saran
No time-frame can be fixed for approaching IAEA: S S Menon

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 04 Jul 2008 19:22

Vina:

Don't be so euphoric my friend and praise MMS/Sonia to 5th heavens. We have debated endlessly, and this deal is at best dog bones from Bush and at worst India beomes nuke nude (more likely). Plus, once MMS signs, mark my word, TSP will get a deal of sorts, and with both South Asia boys nuke nude, Unkil will calibrate both so either doens't get uppity with an arms sale here and arms sale there to keep the balance which includes TSP keeping India in check with their LeT/Jaish boys. If Congress comes back to power, the same arguments will be given: "India will be a global superpower of the 21st century" to give Kashmir de-facto independence (notice how MMS supinely caved in to the TSP-inspired Kashmiri Muslim scum violently protesting a small piece of land allocated to assist Hindu pilgrims in their ardous journey to Amarnath cave). If MMS has his way through this deal and Congress continues its reigns, and everything goes along the best case rosy path through his deal, it will be case of no war, no peace for some time, giving enough room for TSP to recoup and be a royal pain in India's you know where. Forget about taking on China and beyond. In fact, I would argue that without a strong nuke-armed military and a nationalist ideology, "globalization" (pax Americana) may well turn India into a loose "South Asian" federation as many elites both in India and west want including MMS/Sonia. Some global power of the 21st century, my foot.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jul 2008 19:33

Folks, there is no doubt that India needs a "deal", she needs the Uranium, a few reactors, etc to tide her through. The discussions related to the "deal", rightly or wrongly, deal with what are the supporting clauses in the deal - are they worth it. That is an Indian view - the deal AND the supporting clauses. (Which is what ldev was explaining a few pages ago - and rightly so.)

There is an American view - just like the Indian view. The American view is about proliferation. They care to hoots about India and power or economy or what ever. Proliferation is what matters to them - and rightly so.

Thus this "deal" to them is a first step in the direction of total non-proliferation. The Henry K visit to India was not that of a Statesman. It was part of a multiple people visiting India and trying to twist arms and bribe and cajole - all part of the game, nothing wrong, all politicians do that. There were a team of NRIs who were part of this effort and they have produced a glossy too mark the event. Again, not a knock on them, they are part of the process.

This too is OK provided Chicom and TSP gets roped in. Which is where the challenge lies. India will gladly wrap up her strategic efforts IF the rest of them do so too - verifiably do so.

So, do not expect MMS to walk away, for he cannot. The noose of non-proliferation can only be tightened. Once tightened, it stays there until the next chance to tighten.

My read:

IAEA and NSG are only temporary acronyms to achieve this end. The haves within them are scared crap about nukes in bad guys hand (and rightly so) and others are interested in keeping their business going. So, IMHO, until Uranium is totally milked (much like oil) they will not go to Thorium (India has the 4th largest amount of Th). So, not just from a proliferation perspective, but from a business one too, India can expect the IAEA to be very intrusive, even with a separation plan. Then the issue becomes, IF India (or for that matter any other country) has a army and an air force.

Expect these acronyms to morph into others in the near future.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 04 Jul 2008 20:36

Lecture by Dr Anil Kakodkar at the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore
04-July-2008
Evolving Indian Nuclear Programme:
Rationale and Perspectives
http://www.dae.gov.in/lecture.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jul 2008 21:21

Vina, What we are talking about is INC transformation vs existence? What is the street view in the city?

vina · Post by **vina** » 04 Jul 2008 21:41

CRamS wrote:Plus, once MMS signs, mark my word, TSP will get a deal of sorts, and with both South Asia boys nuke nude, Unkil will calibrate both so either doens't get uppity with an arms sale here and arms sale there to keep the balance which includes TSP keeping India in check with their LeT/Jaish boys.

Firstly, India doesnt get nuke nude. I simply dont see how. The Indian arsenal and facilities are separated anyways from the deal. It doesnt stand to reason. We persisted with the option even when we were far weaker and endured sanctions on it for like 30 odd years. Now we are far stronger, and we voluntarily go nuke nude? .. No way. I think the India specific agreements recognize India's de facto nuclear status. They couldn't open the CTBT and let india in as a nuclear power. But this bypasses that. No wonder it got the NPA's goat. India cannot tie it's future to imported hydrocarbon.. The recent hike in oil prices is equivalent to the entire tax base of the Indian govt ..around 10% of the GDP. That is clearly unsustainable and we need to move to other energy options , including nuclear. In fact, France, South Korea , Japan, Denmark, Scandinavia and Germany should be the models for India's energy policy going forward. Coal and Oil must be out.

No one is going to sign any nuke deal with TSP , given how unstable it is . Heck.. Looks like Peshawar is in danger of falling to the Taliban! I am willing to bet that the Chinese wont do so either, going forward. They have been burned badly by the Xerox khan's nuclear walmart enterprise and it is the Chinese weapon design that keeps turning up in places like Iran to Libya like a bad nightmare. The world knows that. TSP's leverage was that it had fellow rogue states like North Korea and former rogues like China to trade with. Now North Korea is neutralized (the unspoken /unheralded triumph of GW Bush's nuclear policy..add Libya to that list, Iran is a work in progress that shows all sign of capitulating soon, despite all the bluster)..Now with fellow rogues knocked out and TSP/China nuke linkages cut off, TSP has no leverage.. it will be squeezed and contained.

If Congress comes back to power, the same arguments will be given: "India will be a global superpower of the 21st century" to give Kashmir de-facto independence (notice how MMS supinely caved in to the TSP-inspired Kashmiri Muslim scum violently protesting a small piece of land allocated to assist Hindu pilgrims in their ardous journey to Amarnath cave). If MMS has his way through this deal and Congress continues its reigns, and everything goes along the best case rosy path through his deal, it will be case of no war, no peace for some time, giving enough room for TSP to recoup and be a royal pain in India's you know where. Forget about taking on China and beyond. In fact, I would argue that without a strong nuke-armed military and a nationalist ideology, "globalization" (pax Americana) may well turn India into a loose "South Asian" federation as many elites both in India and west want including MMS/Sonia. Some global power of the 21st century, my foot.

The way Kashmir will get settled when the gap (economic, social, cultural, political and general well being) between India and TSP widen to such a level that even pretend equal-equal would be laughably silly. We are not there yet, but will be there in another 15 to 20 years. Eventually TSP elites and society (or if they have anything called that there) will realize that the atavistic conflict with India is neither necessary nor desirable and profitable, that is when there can be a settlement. India's primary job is simple . Keep growing strongly and strengthen society and get the health, education and wellness up, while maintaining a strong armed force that deters any misadventure from TSP and China or anyone else. Once we are in the USD 5000 /7000 percapita range and poverty is reduced to 5% or less (around today's Turkey's levels),. (Korea was there like 10 years ago.)..we would be over the "hump" and the most serious challenges to India would have been surmounted. That is the 2020 target..

Once that happens USD 5k to 7k range per captia and 5% poverty, the entire neighborhood will be different. Conflict with India will be idiotic for any of the smaller neighbors. Think of it.. You are sitting next to one of the largest most attractive markets in the world.. with decent technology and strong manufacturing and services base .. what would you rather do.. fight with it or trade with it , that too when India's defense forces are far stronger than your's ? The dynamic would be different.

Pax Americana is over / not the same anymore. We will be in a different kind of place in 25 years from now. It will be a mutli polar world where hopefully large emerging BRIC countries get absorbed into the international system without too much disrpution. There is no need to "take on" the Chinese without any good reason. China too will change and evolve and will face "encirclement" by Unkil, Taiwan, Japan , India and Asean if it is disruptive and threatening.

Hopefully, the next 50 years will be a year of peace and growth , and very different from the previous 50 years. for that you have to strike at the root of conflict... OIL.. Get away from the oil addiction and you will be fine. That is why the Nuke deal is so important and kudos to MMS and Sonia for realizing that and seeing it through.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 04 Jul 2008 22:08

Just to get this straight, in my opinion, UPA cares more about this deal than indian lives. UPA would not mind loosing commie support over this deal but the case is not the same when it comes to internal security regarding maoists and TSP and economic reforms.

BSR Murthy · Post by **BSR Murthy** » 04 Jul 2008 22:19

Vina, I like your reasoning and read of the situation. Excellent post. Thank you.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 04 Jul 2008 22:27

vina: I tend to agree with the prediction that there will be an H&D-saving "123" with TSP. This may be the price paid to get Dragon support in the NSG. Whether the IAEA and US/ Israel want to face another unstable, rabid "NPT member" with "fully safeguarded" nuclear facilities, is another question, but they are used to doing stupid things in foreign policy, this won't be anything new.

In the long term, I see a different scenario. I think China will face major "centrifugal" stresses (no pun intended) as the gap between haves and have-nots widens and deepens. Right now their center seems rock-solid, but they have a history of violent conflict at the top (Liu Shao-Chi, Mao, Gang of 4 etc). An economic decline coupled with threats to integrity, can make the situation very different there. In the shorter term this will also pose severe security threats to India as they try to divert attention.

India actually faces more threats from inside than outside. The developments in Northeast, East (Orissa and AP), Central (Chattisgarh and MP), Northwest (Kashmir) along with the usual situation in Rajasthan, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal and Bihar, with worsening communal strife in UP and worsening civic strife in Maharashtra, all make for a really alarming totality. Viewed against this, the nuclear deal is small potatoes. You can't use 1MT or even 10KT weapons against Naxals or Veerappan.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jul 2008 22:46

vina wrote:
Hopefully, the next 50 years will be a year of peace and growth , and very different from the previous 50 years. for that you have to strike at the root of conflict... OIL.. Get away from the oil addiction and you will be fine. That is why the Nuke deal is so important and kudos to MMS and Sonia for realizing that and seeing it through.

The next 50 years could be the most violent in history and the violence and war will be for OIL resource as never before.
Seeds of the war has been put in Iraq and Iran.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 04 Jul 2008 23:00

Arun_S wrote:... it is now official.

Satyam Eva Jayatey.
....
...One has to grow through years of study before Calculus makes sense serve useful base for serious science and engineering.

As I sometimes say, listen to this man, at first it may seem outland-ish, but after one has spent 10,000 hours of serious homework reading,

Apologies in advance, I I did not follow the whole context here.. but like to add to excellent points coming out from shastras and other great books.

Satyam Eve Jayatey!
How true! (No pun intended)... just like to add from the same source:
"Yasya Na asti svayam pragya, shastram tashya karoti kim?
Lochanabhayam vihanasya, darparma kasya karoti kim?"

(Rough translation: All the great books in the world are as useful to a man without logical thought, as a mirror to a blind person [to help him see])

And speaking about people "laughing" at un-conventional people, In the words of Carl Sagan:

"They laughed at Galileo! but they also laughed at bozo the clown"

Regards.

vina · Post by **vina** » 04 Jul 2008 23:04

enqyoob wrote:vina: I tend to agree with the prediction that there will be an H&D-saving "123" with TSP. This may be the price paid to get Dragon support in the NSG. Whether the IAEA and US/ Israel want to face another unstable, rabid "NPT member" with "fully safeguarded" nuclear facilities, is another question, but they are used to doing stupid things in foreign policy, this won't be anything new.

That will be a moth eaten 123. if at all it comes about .(to paraphrase the quote from the Quaid E Duh),and really of no consequence other than a balm to soothe beaten to pulp H&D bottom. Fact is Paki Nuke capability is capped.. (and so is India's.. we accepted voluntary no test after Pokhran II).. I think we should take the "different trajectory" talk at face value, especially given the tremendous amount of serious work the US has put in trying to get the nuclear genie of Xerox Khan's genius back in the bottle. I do think it is very very unlikely that Pakistan will get any 123.

Viewed against this, the nuclear deal is small potatoes. You can't use 1MT or even 10KT weapons against Naxals or Veerappan.

I totally agree. In fact.. (the only time I will do equal equal here) the Pakis are discovering the exact same thing with the Taliban and the Jihad monsters they nurtured and that have turned on them after 9/11!

The nuclear deal and "strategic capabilities" are small potatoes. It is binary.. either you have it or don't. We simply cannot get into a contest on nuclear arsenal size with China or Unkil or any other country. It is terribly wasteful and not needed. I buy the minimum deterrent stuff.. The NPT /CTBT regime crimped our energy growth and imposed huge costs (technology sanctions, political relations .. market access... etc) on us. What the 123 does is let us into the legitimate trade in Nuclear Energy club, while letting us keep the nuclear detterent. It simply cant get any better than that!.. What India needs to focus is definitely is making mass poverty in India the stuff of history text books and get HDI indicators upto the best in the world....Then alone will the promise of democracy will be fully delivered (beyond just electing leaders) and troubles like Maoists /Naxalites , regionalism (increased mobility will take care of it) will be taken care of.

vina · Post by **vina** » 04 Jul 2008 23:11

Acharya wrote:The next 50 years could be the most violent in history and the violence and war will be for OIL resource as never before.Seeds of the war has been put in Iraq and Iran.

Oil has caused enough misery , the history of the middle east over the past 50 years is ample testimony to that. However, it is unsustainable and cannot meet the energy demands over the next 50 years. You need to move away from it. Everyone realizes that. The market too will play its part via demand destruction if oil prices remain high.. i do think we will see an accelerating switch away from oil.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 04 Jul 2008 23:25

K Mehta wrote:Lecture by Dr Anil Kakodkar at the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore
04-July-2008
Evolving Indian Nuclear Programme:
Rationale and Perspectives
http://www.dae.gov.in/lecture.htm

Folks should go through the slide presentation. It gives a snapshot of India's electricity requirements over the next 60 years and where in AK's opinion imported fuel/reactors fit into the overall scheme of things.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jul 2008 23:42

N^3, More than facing PRC there is need to legitimize their proliferation to TSP. Otherwise the big sin (PRC--> TSP) is allowed, while those contemplating sinning (the axis of evil:Iran, Libya, Syria) will get whacked. So as next step there will be a PRC/TSP 123 in NSG. NoKo has a virtual agreement with US. No need for NSG there.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 04 Jul 2008 23:49

In fact I dont think there is a plan for an accelerated switch from oil. I think what is being done is to aggressively go after all forms of energy. So while the deal is one part of it (yes, it still appears all clock and dagger but the ones which looked and smelt clean from the get go can probably be counted on ones fingers if at all) look at what is ALSO being pursued. China likewise has been locking up as many as posible for a while now.

Forbes: India may invest up to $10 billion in exploiting Canada's tar sands

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jul 2008 23:52

Only yesterday my son was wondering about how come no one is looking at Canada's tar sands as the rpice of oil is quite high to make oil from tar sands viable! The oil in tar sands is ~3x KSA reserves if you get every drop.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 04 Jul 2008 23:57

You should take him on a trip to the Athabasca river, the tar sands and the glacier, and the Lashkar-e-Mosquitos there.

Suddenly the Saudi desert seems warm and friendly...

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 05 Jul 2008 00:25

ramana wrote:Editorial Deccan Chronicle, 4 july 2008

A deft move by Mulayam

The Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, by going to seek an "impartial"opinion from former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who before his elevation to thecountry's highest office was well known as one of India's top nuclear scientists, and is now one of the most articulate votaries of the Indo-US nuclear deal, not merely kept to its course of moving closer to the Congress and the UPA government, but virtually played a charade on its partners in the United National Progressive Alliance.

Dr Kalam's views on the nuclear deal was well known: he has said over and over again that the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States was in the "national interest." Mulayam Singh Yadav took his UNPA allies for a ride by heading for the former President's residence immediately after the UNPA meeting was over on Thursday afternoon. Interestingly, by going to Dr Kalam and seeking his counsel on the deal, Mr Yadav has managed to deftly deflect the accusation put forward by his arch political rival, Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati, that the American deal was "anti-Muslim."

This was a masterstroke delivered by the wily regional satrap of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav. The Samajwadi Party will now try to send out the signal that the deal was being supported by none other than Dr Kalam, a Muslim himself. The inference is now possible that the Samajwadi Party will go ahead and announce its support to the Manmohan Singh government, albeit with certain conditions.

We may safely assume that the Samajwadis will ensure the UPA's survival, after the likely pullout by the Left parties, and also try to pre-empt early Lok Sabha elections. While the UPA government's survival looks a little more assured at this juncture, it is known that the Congress itself is also sharply divided on the nuclear deal, and its second-rung leaders are unhappy that the government and the deal are being saved at the expense of the Left parties.

The Samajwadi Party's "rescue operation", in the eyes of many Congressmen, is suspect because of its unreliable and unpredictable track record. However, both the outfits, struggling in Uttar Pradesh, feel that the political formula being blended before the general elections could stun the charge of the blue elephant and the lotus brigade, also working frantically to make its presence felt.

I understand the need for political parties to get cover for their shenanigans but to call Dr. APJ Kalam, as top nuclear scientist is great terminalogical inexactitude. And the Editorial to repeat is a mark of dorkiness.

Every human has weaker side to his/her personality. Prof APJ Kalam is no exception. People dont talk about it because of all the good sides of his personalty, but that hides not take away personal follies.

Prof APJ Kalam is known to not correct or reprimanded reporter or hosts when they introduce and glorify him as country's top nuclear scientist. Are only DDM and editors responsible for dorkiness?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2008 01:11

Folks should go through the slide presentation. It gives a snapshot of India's electricity requirements over the next 60 years and where in AK's opinion imported fuel/reactors fit into the overall scheme of things.

I second that.

Are slides 13 and 14 some kind of hints? "FBR Using spent fuel from LWR" and right below that "LWR (Imported)". So, he seems to be expecting FBRs to come to the civilian side of the fence around 2023, and then use the reprocessed mal from imported LWRs in these FBR. He seems to have set the goal for imported reactors.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 05 Jul 2008 02:16

After reading a lot and undesrtanding a little, finally looking at the PPT of AK, Looks like Indian generation born after 1985 will live to see the benefits of this 123 and that of Fast Breaders.
SUBJECT to everything going according to plan both in terms of resources and timely completion of projects. [{2008 + (25 +5)} = 2038 AD]

For all we know by then Hydrogen will be the source of Power (no Not Hydrogen bum) Controlled combustion of Hydrogen in true adiabatic reactor vessels?

Which needless to say is very questionable based on past performance record of DAE and AEC.
I wont be there to see the light for sure.