India nuclear news and discussion

[Gerard]

Open up nuclear power sector to meet energy needs: Montek

[Gerard]

India offers 10,000 MW of nuclear contracts to U.S.

[John Snow]

As a fall out of the present financial crisis in Union of Socialist America. Unkil will exert extreme pressure on getting business to sell everything and collect back dollars from India. They might open up some military hardware too if we play our cards right, only ask for Technology transfer but not finished products which might require spares, or be ridden with bugs... JMVHT

[rajrang]

We can only hope that your predictions are correct and will hold for many decades.

In the near future China will be the most powerful country on Earth (that is a relatively easy prediction) and will have the economic power to even influence US political processes including the election of Presidents (legally). Then they can lean on the US to squeeze India.

Rajrang,

I get a sense from your comments on China from time to time that you are somewhat in awe of that nation (of course I could be wrong).

May I point out that to be the ''the most powerful'' country in the world, a nation needs more than a huge forex surplus and being the factory of the world.

There are various soft factors which are as important as the hard ones like a trillion dollar + forex reserve and high GDP growth. Until and unless China solves its internal contradictions it's in no position to be a ''great'' power let alone the ''most powerful'' nation.

And yes the one child policy will ensure that China becomes an aging society before it becomes a high income one. In short there's a lot of problems which the CPC will have to tackle which can't be solved with $$ and dictatorship.

So even as we admire the Olympics infra, the rebuilding of Shanghai and the fact that China has become the factory of the world - and even try to learn from their feats - there's no reason to wring our hands in despair. Let's not fall for Chinese psy-ops.

JMT

I am only impressed with China's power - not its values. Macroscopic economic indicators point to their tremendous economic power. That is why the West led by the US want closer relations with India. India cannot ignore this factor. The industrial revolution made European powers powerful especially Britain and control the world. It was the industrial might of the US that WW1 and WW2 concluded the way it did. Being a factory to the world including its own 1.3 billion residents is something worrisome for India's security - given the long disputed border. Their history of attacking India in 1962 and arming TSP with nuclear weapons. India can ignore all this at great peril. Their presence in Tibet is analgous in my view to the growing threat through Afghanistan 1000 years back. Maybe I am sounding a little melo dramatic here!

However, I definitely agree with your good points - they have weaknesses and like barbarians are zero in soft factors. Still barbarians can cause a lot of grief - think WW1 and WW2 as examples.

The reality may be somewhere between our viewpoints - I hope it is closer to yours.

[rajrang]

India offers 10,000 MW of nuclear contracts to U.S.

If the US Government cannot legally compel US businesses to sell nuclear fuel to India, then how can the Indian Government compel Indian businesses to buy 10,000 MW of US reactors?

This question becomes more valid especially quoting from the above link that the US lags the French and Russians in nuclear technology.

[rajrang]

In the near future China will be the most powerful country on Earth (that is a relatively easy prediction) and will have the economic power to even influence US political processes including the election of Presidents (legally). Then they can lean on the US to squeeze India.

If China becomes more powerful than the US, why would they need US to squeeze India?

Then both can squeeze India - But I should add that the US is made of fairly tough material - this scenario is probably decades away when China's economic power is much much greater than that of the US - not just marginally greater.

For instance, there can be situations when the US and China may act in a seemingly "cooperative" manner. Classis example: when China (barbarically) armed PAK with nuclear technology (weapons?) in the 1980s the US looked the other way because they needed China's cooperation against the former SU, particularly in Afghanistan.

So the scenario of China leaning on the US to put pressure on India - maybe through the present nuclear deal that India has entered into - is not far fetched, especially under changed political circumstances.

[Philip]

The hidden truths of the deal are slowly outing,that it is firstly not "clean and unconditional",but has deeper secret committments from India that effectively emasculate and castrate our N-deterrent and make us neo-colonial slaves to nuclear power companies and the US govt. over technology and fuel,as definite pressure will be brought to bear upon NSG nations that do business with us if we ever test again.One can imagine the glee of vested interests on both sides who hope to make huge bucks in this time of economic meltdown with India secretly commiting 10,000crores of business to the US!

[NRao]

Even a $100 billion to the US alone is not even a drop in its economic bucket. The US DoD itself has a budget of some $700 Billion!!! Single software projects are at $5 BILLION. It will employ a few - on the high end of the scale (in the US), but will not contribute much to the US economy.

I am inclined to believe that MMS may have tried to give more than required, but I strongly feel that DAE held its own. DAE would have liked a better deal than what the GoI got. JMHO.

[ShauryaT]

I am inclined to believe that MMS may have tried to give more than required, but I strongly feel that DAE held its own. DAE would have liked a better deal than what the GoI got. JMHO.

It does not matter, what the DAE would have liked. There was a way for the DAE to stop it and they did not. End of story. DAE leaderships shares FULL responsibility for this deal as the GoI.

[ShauryaT]

Open up nuclear power sector to meet energy needs: Montek

It was Alhuwalia's report that started MMS on this path of the IUNCA. Count on the nuclear sector opening up. I also feel that this is the carrot that was dangled in front of the DAE to partly gain their support.

[ramana]

Open up nuclear power sector to meet energy needs: Montek

It was Alhuwalia's report that started MMS on this path of the IUNCA. Count on the nuclear sector opening up. I also feel that this is the carrot that was dangled in front of the DAE to partly gain their support.

With UPA and MKN kind of NSA this is recipe for future jihadi disaster. Reliance will have to payoff the whole SIMIan troupe.

[sraj]

Raja Menon says:

Without the 123, agreement and the Hyde Act, no high-tech dual use licenses can come to India without the approval of the US Department of Commerce or the State Department, and no US company gets into this hassle unless the order is worth billions of dollars.

Brahma Chellaney says:

Flogging fabrications indeed has proven so useful in shaping public perceptions that claims are becoming more brazen. Take the claim that the deal marks the end of the technology-control regime against India.

Easing high-technology and civilian-space export controls is not even part of this deal.

Who is correct?

[harik]

Raja Menon says:

Without the 123, agreement and the Hyde Act, no high-tech dual use licenses can come to India without the approval of the US Department of Commerce or the State Department, and no US company gets into this hassle unless the order is worth billions of dollars.

Brahma Chellaney says:

Flogging fabrications indeed has proven so useful in shaping public perceptions that claims are becoming more brazen. Take the claim that the deal marks the end of the technology-control regime against India.

Easing high-technology and civilian-space export controls is not even part of this deal.

Who is correct?

Okay lets look at it in this way, did you ever come across Raja Menon question this deal ? ever .

And BC is definetly not a leftist.

[rajrang]

Even a $100 billion to the US alone is not even a drop in its economic bucket. The US DoD itself has a budget of some $700 Billion!!! Single software projects are at $5 BILLION. It will employ a few - on the high end of the scale (in the US), but will not contribute much to the US economy.

I am inclined to believe that MMS may have tried to give more than required, but I strongly feel that DAE held its own. DAE would have liked a better deal than what the GoI got. JMHO.

Let me make a rough estimate. Assuming that the US anual GDP is $ 15 trillion and supports 150 million jobs. That works out to $ 100,000 per job for one year. Assume India buys one $ 2 billion reactor from the US every year, indefinitely. This approximates to 20,000 jobs per year, indefinitely.

(I have made some sweeping assumptions above - mainly to get a very approximate estimate - to get some insight into the matter.)

[kshirin]

I agre with Ramana - Montek saying this gives me the jitters. One cannot treat nuclear energy as just any other sector - and turning it to eco types is inviting disaster.

[NRao]

This approximates to 20,000 jobs per year, indefinitely.

Actually the estimates put forth by the Bush Admin was 27,000 jobs. Mind you most, if not all would be high end jobs. But, I doubt it would that many.

It does not matter, what the DAE would have liked. There was a way for the DAE to stop it and they did not. End of story. DAE leaderships shares FULL responsibility for this deal as the GoI.

AKs stand way back and then "proud to be an Indian" does not follow that story. There was also a scicom lull just around the Hyde Act.

It is end of story, but, I for one think it was an imposed end of story.

added l8r:

There was a way for the DAE to stop it and they did not.

What was this way. Just curious.

[ramdas]

Allowing Private entities in nuclear business will lead to uncontrolled imports beyond the 40000MW enisaged by DAE...this will lead to pressures that make testing in the supreme national interest much more difficult. These eco types are dismantling state power in slow motion. The nuclear field is a field where state interest is sacrosanct and private players should never be allowed to be in this field except as subcontractors for NPCIL.

Somehow, in India the concept of state security /national security is not at all understood adequately. Economic freedom is OK only upto that point where it does not impinge upon national security. In this case, a situation where powerful private interests come in the way of building up our nuclear deterrent may be created.

[Santosh]

The construction cost of coal fired thermal power plant IIRC was Rs 1.2 crores per MW. What is the construction cost for Nuclear Power plant per MW?

I don't agree that allowing private sector to civilian nuclear power plants would lead to increasing restraint on future testing. India should make sure that the funding pattern is such that in case of a sanctions, the financial losses would be shared by foreign firms as much as Indian firms. This will act as a leverage on foreign countries to go soft on such issues. The best times for testing would be when the construction is in full swing and not a single paisa has been recovered by such firms.

[NRao]

Private involvement does not mean there is no oversight (from DAE), at least as of today. Besides that it will be in the civilian area.

Why would testing be an issue? I would expect that more tie ins on the private side would detach strategic decisions from the discussions. Now, if that happens at all I feel is up to India herself.

[ShauryaT]

There was a way for the DAE to stop it and they did not.

What was this way. Just curious.

At the end of the day, this deal would not have gone through, if the folks at DAE would have said no. The technical team can always say no, if they cannot say yes. Many of the key aspects of the deal have been shattered right in front of their eyes but DEA has acquiesced.

However, there is a larger problem. It was KS, who was one of the key folks to convince the IG government to go for testing (when it suited IG to do so). Left to the DAE, they were OK, not to test even POK I. KS himself was not in favor of POK II, before the tests but did support the events, once they were done. The folks at DAE are scientists, not warriors. The warriors themselves are not given an adequate level of say in matters of strategic security, which combines economics, FP, geopolitics and military dimensions of power. Outside think tanks play a vital role in influencing the thought processes of the government in power, as they have the capacity to think outside of the box more easily. A well oiled strategic security machine would have people rolling in and out of the public and private (profit and non-profit) sectors. These aspects of strategic security apparatus are at a nascent stage in India.

So, if DAE says today, they do not need to test, it is at best, a technical view of the issue. Even in the technical realm, their view is being challenged.

[ShauryaT]

Raja Menon says:

Without the 123, agreement and the Hyde Act, no high-tech dual use licenses can come to India without the approval of the US Department of Commerce or the State Department, and no US company gets into this hassle unless the order is worth billions of dollars.

Brahma Chellaney says:

Flogging fabrications indeed has proven so useful in shaping public perceptions that claims are becoming more brazen. Take the claim that the deal marks the end of the technology-control regime against India.

Easing high-technology and civilian-space export controls is not even part of this deal.

Who is correct?

As long as India, would agree to conduct foreign policy, in congruent to that of the United States, the Presidential determination will be to let India acquire dual use high tech items. Was this deal necessary for India and US to come to such an understanding. Not at all.

[awagaman]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/r ... -security/

Rushing into the Wrong Future: The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Energy and Security

by Andrew Lichterman and M.V. Ramana / September 20th, 2008

In March 2000, the former President Bill Clinton called the Indian subcontinent the most dangerous place in the world. Today, on the other hand, the Bush administration is pushing ahead with a controversial nuclear deal with India that could make the most dangerous place even more dangerous. The latest saga in the story of the deal occurred on September 6 when the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which sets widely observed export controls on nuclear technology, approved a U.S.-India proposal to lift a ban on nuclear trade with India. The next stop is the U.S. Congress, which has to approve the deal before the United States can actually engage in nuclear commerce with India.

There is a sour irony in the NSG making such an exception for India. The NSG was formed largely in response to India exploding a nuclear device in 1974. Several NSG states felt that approving nuclear trade for India, a nuclear-armed country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, would undermine global non-proliferation efforts and further legitimize nuclear weapons. These countries put up considerable opposition to the deal, but they were stifled by the United States which engaged in what Jayantha Dhanapala, former United Nations Under Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs, described as a campaign of “brutal and unconscionable pressure.”

Key to having the NSG approve the exception for India was diplomats agreeing to paper over key objections with vague language, particularly regarding the consequences if India conducts nuclear tests or takes advantage of greater access to nuclear materials and foreign technology to expand and refine its nuclear arsenal. To prevent further political difficulties at home for India’s government, the Bush Administration may attempt a similar strategy in Congress. It could seek a spare formulation that approves the U.S.-India agreement as negotiated, while remaining silent about provisions of prior U.S. law that place greater restrictions on technology transfer, and that would cut off trade in nuclear fuels and technology if India conducted a nuclear explosive test. Further, by ramming the deal through Congress in the waning days of its fall session, the Administration will leave little time for study or debate.

What the Administration will likely not mention is that the deal would actually allow India to expand its nuclear arsenal, permitting it to buy fuel for nuclear power reactors on the international market while using scarce domestic uranium in nuclear weapons production. It will further aggravate tensions with Pakistan, which has signaled that it would respond in kind to a more ambitious Indian nuclear weapons program. Thus, the deal could further fuel an arms race between nuclear-armed neighbors that have fought multiple wars. The last war between the two countries in 1999 featured at least thirteen indirect and direct nuclear threats.

Despite these dangers, advocates of the deal see an increase in India’s nuclear capabilities as positive. To quote Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment: “If the United States is serious about advancing its geopolitical objectives in Asia, it would almost by definition help New Delhi develop strategic capabilities such that India’s nuclear weaponry and associated delivery systems could deter against the growing and utterly more capable nuclear forces Beijing is likely to possess by 2025.” Such thinking only serves to legitimize the ultimate weapons of mass destruction, and to encourage the United States to ignore its nuclear disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and India to continue its nuclear weapons build-up.

Originally announced in July 2005 by President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the nuclear deal is part of a broader set of agreements centering on increased U.S.-India military cooperation and high-tech trade. In the United States an array of corporate interests led by the nuclear industry and arms makers are supporting the deal. They see the possibilities not only for nuclear trade but for big ticket weapons sales, as well as selling other goods and services to India’s elite, only a fraction of the population but a huge new market nonetheless. This emerging economic order, which systemically generates huge disparities of wealth both within and among nations, is itself a source of conflict. The answer envisioned by the military elites is to throw ever more sophisticated levels of high tech violence at these conflicts. Foreign policy pundits and officials in both countries extol the benefits of increased military cooperation, with the more enthusiastic on the U.S. side envisioning India as a junior partner for the U.S. military agenda in Asia. In the aftermath of wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the prospect of U.S. military action in Asia is hardly remote.

Despite the future oriented rhetoric the deal has been wrapped in, what is most striking about it is its backward looking character. Nuclear power was the technology of the future in the 1950s. Half a century later, the promise of energy “too cheap to meter” remains an unfulfilled dream, the fundamental problems of catastrophic risk and long lasting highly radioactive waste still unsolved. With nuclear power construction having ground to a halt in wealthier countries, the industry has turned its sights to Asia, marketing nuclear technology as a climate friendly solution to the continent’s burgeoning energy demand.

However, nuclear power cannot play a significant role in solving the energy needs of the vast majority of India’s population, much less do so in a way that offers any net environmental gains. Nuclear plants today generate only three percent of India’s electricity and less than one percent of its total energy needs. Even under the most optimistic scenarios nuclear power will only be able to double or triple its share of total electricity generation by the middle of this century. Nuclear power, the most expensive form of centralized electricity generation, is an inefficient way to deliver energy to India’s vast unserved rural population. Investing the immense capital needed to construct nuclear plants, in ways that we describe below, offers far larger payoffs for reductions of carbon emissions.

The single most pressing “security” issue of the 21st century will be assuring the essentials of a healthy, dignified life for the billions of people who are left out of a global economy focused on delivering mass consumption items to urban middle classes, luxuries to wealthy elites, and weapons to enforce this inequitable status quo. In the rising global awareness of both global warming and limits on oil supplies, there is an opportunity for a different path of both technology development and trade. This path would emphasize environmental sustainability and equity, rather than profits and maximizing consumption. It would therefore focus on decentralized energy strategies and technologies, and rapidly increasing access to electricity and more efficient energy services for currently unserved populations. This approach to energy development has other positive consequences, e.g. improving public health by reducing open fuel burning for cooking and heat, slowing deforestation where wood is used for fuel, and creating large numbers of jobs broadly distributed geographically and in skill levels, from technology development through manufacturing to widely distributed work installing equipment for decentralized energy generation and use.

Expanding use of decentralized, renewable energy technologies in India also would promote further innovation and bring down prices, encouraging their spread in the U.S. as well. Several virtuous, mutually reinforcing cycles can be created in this way: improving energy access, providing employment, and generally broadening the economic potential of areas left out of the current mode of corporate globalization, reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption in the United States, and reducing as a consequence the need for access to foreign oil and gas that is a significant factor driving an aggressive U.S. foreign policy world-wide. This kind of approach, furthermore, can more easily be achieved incrementally, with constantly improving decentralized energy technologies being deployed a household, a village, a city at a time, without the kind of massive, one shot capital costs that commit entire regions to a narrow set of technologies and generating facilities for decades at a time.

This is what the 21st century could look like. In contrast, the U.S. India nuclear deal would build another set of institutional ties binding us to the power structures, both technical and political, of the last century, strengthening those who profit from centralized control of energy resources, a society that generates and tolerates great disparities in wealth, and a global weapons trade that further concentrates wealth while raising the risk of catastrophic wars from the local to the global. Nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and this nuclear deal are all bad risks for ordinary people everywhere, risks that humanity can no longer afford. It is time to chart a different future.

Andrew Lichterman is a lawyer and policy analyst for the Oakland, California based Western States Legal Foundation. M.V. Ramana is a physicist and Senior Fellow at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore, India. Read other articles by Andrew Lichterman.

[Nitesh]

N-deal countdown: PM leaves for US, France tomorrow

21 Sep 2008, 1253 hrs IST,PTI

NEW DELHI: Armed with an NSG waiver, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh embarks on a 10-day visit to the US and France on Monday amid mounting suspense over the Indo-US nuclear deal clearing the final Congressional hurdle in time for President George W Bush to toast the landmark accord.

Singh's first diplomatic engagement abroad after the crucial waiver that ended the countrys 34-year nuclear isolation may also see India and France firm up an agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation after summit talks with President Nicholas Sarkozy in Paris on September 30.

With just three working days left for the US Congress to take a call on the 123 agreement to clear the decks for the nuke deal in its last lap, the White House is optimistic of wrapping up the pact during Singh's working visit to Washington on September 25 for a meeting with Bush.

In the backdrop of a string of terror attacks in India, Terrorism will be high on Singhs agenda in his parleys with Bush and bilateral meetings with world leaders on the sidelines of the 62nd annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Singh is expected to firmly convey Indias strong concerns over cross-border terrorism and remind Pakistan about its commitments in this regard at his first meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari who has just spoken about the need for bilateral ties to be "creatively reinvented".

A meeting with Chinese premier Wen Jiabo has also been scheduled during which the two leaders are expected to put behind the strains in bilateral relations following Beijings perceived negative role at the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG) meet in Vienna.

Singh, who had last addressed the UN in 2005, will be in New York from September 23 to 27 after an overnight halt in Frankfurt. He will be attending the Indo-European Union (EU) Summit in Marseilles in France on September 29.

At the UN, Singh is expected to make a strong case for the expansion of the Security Council and democratisation of the UN systems. He will also touch upon important issues including terrorism, verifiable and comprehensive nuclear disarmament, food crisis and poverty eradication.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/N-de ... 509294.cms

[joshvajohn]

It is essential for US and India to complete the process quickly so that both will benefit from this agreement. I hope this new relationship is celebrated. It is essential for India as we need energy and power for our growing needs and for US a new customer for their yellow cakes. I strongly assume that this will certainly keep Indian governments to change the course of testing itself in new scientific methods and also will enable to become very powerful in nuclear energy and defence as well. Strategically For US getting India's support means a lot both internationally and in the Asian regions. Ofcourse this relationship is not against any neighbour here.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/N-de ... 509294.cms

[Gerard]

SC dismisses final petition challenging nuclear deal

Responding to the petitioner's allegation that the American law was being imposed on India, Justice Balakrishnan asked, "Which American law is being imposed on India and on what mechanism? Has Parliament approved it? To our knowledge, there is no such step taken by executive.”

[Arun_S]

The construction cost of coal fired thermal power plant IIRC was Rs 1.2 crores per MW. What is the construction cost for Nuclear Power plant per MW?

I don't agree that allowing private sector to civilian nuclear power plants would lead to increasing restraint on future testing. India should make sure that the funding pattern is such that in case of a sanctions, the financial losses would be shared by foreign firms as much as Indian firms. This will act as a leverage on foreign countries to go soft on such issues. The best times for testing would be when the construction is in full swing and not a single paisa has been recovered by such firms.

The hidden truths of the deal are slowly outing,that it is firstly not "clean and unconditional",but has deeper secret committments from India that effectively emasculate and castrate our N-deterrent and make us neo-colonial slaves to nuclear power companies and the US govt. over technology and fuel,as definite pressure will be brought to bear upon NSG nations that do business with us if we ever test again.One can imagine the glee of vested interests on both sides who hope to make huge bucks in this time of economic meltdown with India secretly commiting 10,000crores of business to the US!

Philip-saar: Committing 10GWe nuclear power plant order (and I am not yet talking of lifetime fuel supplies business) to US will cost US$25 billion (international cost of building LWR is 2-2.5M$/MWe as per Shri Anil Kakodar's power point presentation to IISC). Assuming Rs.45/US$ at current exchange rate that is Rs. 1,12,500 Cr. Far in excess of "10,000crores of business to the US" that you mention.

It is quite funny that in the same presentation Shri Kakodkar says for Indian 700 MWe PHWR the capital cost is just 1.7M$/MWe (compared to 2.0 - 2.5M$/MWe global benchmark). And on the next PPT page (Pg#7) he puts on paper fantastic claim of capital cost of Prototype FBR (500 MWe) of just Rs.69,840/KWe corresponding to just 1.552M$/MWe. I.e. the 500MWe PFBR cost by DAE/BARC is lower than the DAE's own 700 MWe PHWR plant cost!!

I guess it is business as usual at BARC/DAE , just unquestionably accept DAE/BARC's claims, and don't ask for evidence.

Just my personal opinion onleee.

[ShauryaT]

Karan Thapar Interview with Arun Shourie: US Plans to make India Subservient: Shourie If I was around, I would not be ashamed in pulling a punch or thapad on this Thapar. No matter, where folks land on the issue, this is no way to conduct an interview, where you ask the questions and you answer them and shut the interviewee. AS should never entertain this Id*ot again. We need a YS or someone more political to deal with the likes of Thapars.

[Rye]

Arun_S wrote:

I guess it is business as usual at BARC/DAE , just unquestionably accept DAE/BARC's claims, and don't ask

You must be pretty clever to figure such things out, and you are clearly smarter than the stupid Indian scientists -- do you eat fish for breakfast regularly? Or maybe genuwine hindoos don't eat fish..I wouldn't know. However, the nagging question is: "what kind of an imbecile does it take to pretend that dissing Indian nuke capabilities will strengthen the perception of a valid Indian deterrent?"

[Arun_S]

However, the nagging question is: "what kind of an imbecile does it take to pretend that dissing Indian nuke capabilities will strengthen the perception of a valid Indian deterrent?"

Indian scientists are themselves showing their imbecile in putting to print such engineering feats of building 500MWe PFBR at 1.55M$/MWE and 700MWE PHWR at 1.7M$/MWe, I am only the little boy who is pointing out the emperor is naked. I am certainly not as smart as the scientists .

Just showing hollowness of claims in printed paper presented in leading forum by DAE itself, so that Indians themselves are alert & realistic in giving due weight to credibility and trust in DAE's claims; and w.r.t strategic matter it should be cause of great worry. If Indian deterrent depends on my pretense of dissing or believing DAE claims, it should be matter of great concern for Indian people.

Indian deterrent should be self evident (unambiguous) and not dependent on what I pretend, no matter if I ate fish today or 25 years ago. No!

[Philip]

Excellently put ShauryaT! You correctly summed up the deal in its entirety,that "conditional" civilian nuclear support will be given to India if it toes the US line on N-non-prolifertion,capping of our nuclear deterrent,no development of delivery systems that can reach the US (personally told to me as gospel truth),meshing of Indian foreign policy and armed forces doctrine to that of the US.It also explains why with indecent haste we are exercising with the US and our defence minister rushes forward to ensure that big-ticket contracts are awarded to the US,through advice on how to finetune US bids.We are on the verge of becoming Uncle Sam's new "rent boy" of S.Asia,to compete with Pak for favours!

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2 ... the-g.html

"Delhi keeps up the pretense that the nuclear deal is all about India's energy security, but it has succumbed to US-Israeli pressure against proceeding with the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, which had a much shorter gestation period and would have been a far cheaper source of energy. The heart of the matter is that the nuclear deal eases the flow of US military technology to India, paving the way for the "interoperability" of the two armed forces and making India a potential ally in coalitions that the US might assemble from time to time as part of its global strategy."

September 17, 2008
Neocons Seem to Be Driving American Interests Off the Cliff in Russia and Central Asia

One of my masked correspondents, "Mark" (who provided me with all the thinking a few weeks back when we unmasked the religious columnist "Shushon" as the highflown double of a vengeful neocon operating under another pseudonym) has been thinking about geopolitics in the wake of the American dabbling in the Georgia-Russia crisis on the side of Georgia and our warming to India over nukes.

In both cases, there is an Israel interest that goes largely unspoken. And by extension, a neoconservative push in Washington for the U.S. to take positions that might not be in our national interest. Where is the American reporting on this issue? It isn't. There is, incredibly, still enormous reluctance on the part of the media to examine the political/institutional power of the neocons--apart from such spasmodic efforts as Chris Matthews blurting that they have coached Sarah Palin on her Israel answer.

I'll turn it over to Mark in a minute, but a couple of texts first.

Here's a great piece of analysis in Stratfor (out of Austin, TX) by George Friedman, about Israel's game in Georgia. Friedman concludes that Israel behaved like a tough realist state, pushing Georgia forward (before Israel backed away a lot quicker than the U.S. did) as part of a strategy to thwart Russia's reemergence as a world power that might arm Israel's enemies.

The other front that's interesting is the U.S. plan to drop the nuclear trade ban on India, welcoming it as a member in good standing of the nukes club. The Asia Times sees an Israel interest in the deal:

Delhi keeps up the pretense that the nuclear deal is all about India's energy security, but it has succumbed to US-Israeli pressure against proceeding with the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, which had a much shorter gestation period and would have been a far cheaper source of energy. The heart of the matter is that the nuclear deal eases the flow of US military technology to India, paving the way for the "interoperability" of the two armed forces and making India a potential ally in coalitions that the US might assemble from time to time as part of its global strategy.

Note that we did an end run on Iran and Pakistan in that deal. And now let me turn this post over to Mark, who asks the smart questions:

From the Asia Times, we learn that Israel and the U.S. are pressuring India to join the U.S. as a potential ally in coalitions for the U.S.'s "global strategy." How does Israel enter into the equation? Since the early 1990s India and Israel have cooperated closely in military and intelligence matters.

But who is directing US strategy and for what purposes? Well, for the past eight years US foreign policy has been largely directed by Neocon obsessions and concerns. Beyond the Iraq war, we know that the Georgia policy and the Central Asia policy were probably forged by neocons with an obsessive hatred for Russia, dating back to their formative years with Scoop Jackson. That hostility appears to be motivated in part by the Israel interest that Friedman cites: fear of possible Russian support for Israel's enemies (and maybe too by lingering resentment of Russia for its treatment of Jews.)

The issue, of course, is whether it is in the interests of the US to allow Israel/Neocons (and I recognize that the views of the two may not always coincide) to dictate our relations with significant geopolitical players, such as Russia and Iran. In the case of Russia, the evidence advanced by Friedman suggests that US neocons may be far more doctrinaire than Israel itself is. The Bush Administration has consistently followed a policy that is designed to marginalize Russia and deny it a say in areas that have historically been of concern to Russia, and thus is virtually guaranteed to alarm Russia with threats of encirclement by a ring of US proxy states. These initiatives are essentially those of Cold War "containment," and send a clear signal to Russia that the US believes it neither needs nor desires a strategic partnership with Russia. From this perspective Putin's reactions are hardly surprising.

Neocons have played leading roles in forging that policy. And yet there are many areas in which it seems clearly in the interests of Russia and the US to cooperate--above all, ensuring stability in Central Asia, a volatile region that combines vast energy resources, unstable regimes offering terrorist sanctuaries, and strategic location. If you consider the region realistically, US setbacks in Mesopotamia and/or Afghanistan are not in Russian interests, either.

PS:Read my earlier post above on the role of the neo-cons and their "Viceroy" for the region and his antecedents.

[Raj Malhotra]

My perception was present cost for Areva EPR was US$ 4 million per MW exclusing interest.

A Layman question:-

Does AHWR allows us to jump over the requirement of FBRs or they are still required?

[kumarn]

Review of military missions (abroad)

The Indian military establishment, spurred by the nuclear waiver, has begun a review of overseas deployments with A.K. Antony calling on the army, the navy and the air force “to be ready for force projection” in foreign territories

[RajeshA]

Indian Americans step up lobbying by Betwa Sharma & Ramesh Soparawala: India Post News Service

WASHINGTON: At the initiative of an eminent Indian community activist and a former president of AAPI, Dr Hemant Patel, nearly a dozen Indian American organizations across the country grouped together and met US lawmakers and others this week in Washington DC to pitch support for the Indo-US Nuke deal that is being debated before the US Congress.

A newly formed Indian American Committee (IAC) headed by Hemant Patel induced thirty prominent Indian Americans representing a number of Indian American associations across the country to get together for a campaign-luncheon at the Rayburn House Office Building in the Capitol Hill neighborhood last week. "Our aim was to ask lawmakers to support and pass the deal," said Hemant Patel, founder and president of the IAC.

The campaigners were joined by senior officials from the White House, State Department and members of Congress, including Democratic Majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer. The organizations lending their unequivocal support for the move and represented at the event, among others, included : American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, National Federation of Indian Associations, Federation of Indian Seniors Association of North America, National Diamond and Colored Stone Merchant Association, Indian-American Forum for Political Education, BJ Medical Association, Veerayat International Share and Care Foundation, National Association of Nurses of Indian Origin, Indian Cultural Association of Edison, New Jersey.

The non Indian organization - the American Jewish Committee - was represented by Nissim Reuben and it extended its wholehearted support for the formalization of the Indo -US Nuke deal. Evan Feigenbaum, the deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, was the first speaker and he welcomed Indian Americans groups working for a common cause.

He observed the Indian-American community really has become woven into the political fabric of the American life now. The Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement allows full civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. India has agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place the civilian facilities under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This deal will end a 30-year isolation period that cut off nuclear-trade for India because of its testing of atomic bombs and refusal to join the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

Feigenbaum highlighted the importance of the nuclear deal in terms of its impact on the relationship between India and the United States, which is entering a new phase. He recalled the past when the United States thought of India only in terms of the "Indo-Pak" framework.

"We are taking our relationship with those countries (India and Pakistan) on their own terms and so we're developing this more forward, looking more for global relationship with India," he said. Brian McCormack, Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives and External Affairs at the White House, said the nuclear deal was a "bipartisan agreement" and had support from both Republicans and Democrats. India needs this deal to sustain the demand of its growing economy, which is growing at a steady rate of eight to nine percent.

The oil and coal guzzling economy is adding a fair share of greenhouse gases. Advocates of the group assert that nuclear fuel will be a clean alternative. The luncheon was attended by four Congressmen who talked about the merits of the deal and addressed the criticism. Congressman Gary Ackerman said that the legislation still needs to be polished before it came before the Congress but expressed general support. Touching upon the criticism of the US for cutting an exception for India when it has not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, he said, "The reality is that India is already a nuclear power and has proven to be a responsible nuclear power." "It is not a country that has invaded any other country. Not a country that has started wars with its neighbors.

A country that lives in a very dangerous neighborhood," he added. The Congressman acknowledged the strategic nature of the deal. "It (India) has a friend that we must have, that we need to have," he said. The Democratic majority leader of the House Steny Hoyer reiterated the point of strategic cooperation saying that "it is of critical interest to the United States to have a close cooperation with India. It is in our national interest."

Congressman Howard Berman, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that the deal would mutually benefit both parties and also have a positive impact globally. "It's good for world wide energy needs, it could be good for US companies and its part of what can tie our two countries together," he said. Congressman Frank Pallone pleaded with the community leaders at the luncheon to spend the rest of day meeting Congressmen and convincing them to pass the deal ASAP. He pointed out that in the last week of the session, lawmakers were busy with domestic issues on the agenda and not foreign policy matters, so there was the risk of the "deal" getting lost.

When the House adjourns later this week it will come back only in January. "This is the time when you have to put the pressure on and explain to everybody that how important this is and it needs to be passed now," he said. Hemant Patel said that IAC and other organizations had achieved what they had set out to do. "We successfully gave the message to the key Congressional members to pass the nuclear deal," he said. "But we will continue our work." Dr Suvas Desai monitored the meet.

Does this mean, that roping in American Jew organizations is perhaps helping in convincing Howard Berman of the benefits of Indo-US nuclear deal?

[Lalmohan]

Review of military missions (abroad)

The Indian military establishment, spurred by the nuclear waiver, has begun a review of overseas deployments with A.K. Antony calling on the army, the navy and the air force “to be ready for force projection” in foreign territories

the "friendly country requiring our assistance" is most likely to be Afghanistan? Or will India be providing peace keepers for Iraq to allow Unkil to redeploy? There must be a big Quid Pro Quo for Unkil clearing this deal

[RajeshA]

Review of military missions (abroad)

The Indian military establishment, spurred by the nuclear waiver, has begun a review of overseas deployments with A.K. Antony calling on the army, the navy and the air force “to be ready for force projection” in foreign territories

the "friendly country requiring our assistance" is most likely to be Afghanistan? Or will India be providing peace keepers for Iraq to allow Unkil to redeploy? There must be a big Quid Pro Quo for Unkil clearing this deal

How are large-scale deployments going to work in Afghanistan?

Either Iran comes on-board, for which the neo-cons and the Israelis would need all a change of hearts, brains, history, etc etc...
Or India needs some space in the North, say the Northern Areas, in order to take care of supply lines.

Otherwise, what Antony is promising the Americans does not really make much sense.

[kumarn]

the "friendly country requiring our assistance" is most likely to be Afghanistan? Or will India be providing peace keepers for Iraq to allow Unkil to redeploy? There must be a big Quid Pro Quo for Unkil clearing this deal

How are large-scale deployments going to work in Afghanistan?

Either Iran comes on-board, for which the neo-cons and the Israelis would need all a change of hearts, brains, history, etc etc...
Or India needs some space in the North, say the Northern Areas, in order to take care of supply lines.

Otherwise, what Antony is promising the Americans does not really make much sense.

I think it is going to be Afghanistan, and this nuclear deal is the beginning of a quasi-alliance between the US and India. The re-organization of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is in the offing.

[RajeshA]

Good News for Indo-Japanese relations and a bilateral Indo-Japanese Nuclear Deal. Now you have a kick-ass Yasukini-Shrine visiting nationalist Taro Aso in the PM's seat.

Only an assertive Japan can provide confidence to India, that making China behave in Asia is a credible mission.

Ruling Party Picks Aso to Be Japan PM Washington Post

[NRao]

I am inclined to go with Kumarn. A'stan-and-wasteLandofPakistan are of interest to both the US and India. Now, only if India can operate under own flag - that would be cool.

In fact I think this is the start of India replacing the Land of Oz in this region.

Japan, etc now have to fall in line. The die has been cast WRT Chicom. Land of Oz is the only one acting very stubborn.

[Philip]

Oz and the US are too deeply entwined for India to ever replace it.If India deploys troops as part of a US neo-con "Con",the moment the first casualties start arriving home in bodybags,will see the govt. of the day run for cover! As long as Indian troops are fighting for their motherland,our citizens are willing to make the supreme sacrifice and their families will accept it ,but if our forces are deployed in anything other than a UN sanctioned force,there will be a massive national protest that will unseat any regime that sends our fighting men and women in a US sponsored and led "misadventure".The last misadventure,the IPKF in Lanka is a disaster enough to warn the current regime not to commit political harakiri...but Man Mohan Singh in his own words has given his "promise" to Bush. Only God knows what he has promised!

The policy makers of this regime,led by the PM are so blinded by their fascination for George Bush,who had only 3% of Americans who said that they trusted him in a poll,the worst ever Pres. in America's history,a man whose legacy is in such tatters that his own father,ex-pres. Bush Sr.,openly wept at his son's disastrous presidency.I also cannot understand how sending our troops to die abroad is a "bonus" or reward for India for signing the N-deal?

[ShauryaT]

If some of you can catch this event, please do post an excerpt here. Thanks.

Talk on “Nuclear Learning in South Asia”, Tuesday, 23 September, 2008 from 12.00 noon to 1.30 p.m. at Conference Hall-II of CPR.

Lead speakers: Dr. Neil Joeck, Sr. Fellow at the Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) at Lawrance Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), US and

Dr. Zachary Davis, Research Professor, Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Post Graduate School, Monterrey, US