India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 27 Aug 2008 05:47

fanne ji you speak the truth as it shall shortly unfold.
After all these IAF exercise in NV uncle will come up with the excuse PAF is far behind IAF in fightingterrorism that Uncle will donate more of A/c and tanks to TSP.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 05:54

Jumrao garu,

The line of reasoning you quoted essentially ends with "India is screwed, we are all doomed, anyone who doesn't believe this is a traitor/agent"

The same thing has been repeated despite being proven wrong after 123 & IAEA. If facts are not going to be considered at all, then all we are doing is exchaning polemic.

Quite disappointing.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Aug 2008 06:09

Let me slightly rephrase that

Mnay countries are trying to screw India, we are all doomed if we do not guard our self interest , anyone who doesn't believe this is either to naive (or have been had) or a traitor/agent

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 27 Aug 2008 06:12

1. 123 is a flawed agreement. It reflects the Hyde Act while using creative language to make it appear as if it does not. Its flaws have been enumerated exhaustively on numerous threads here and in the media.

2. The IAEA agreement, while not perfect, is acceptable and has been so accepted.

Posters who put 123 and IAEA in the same category are trying to confuse issues and insult people's intelligence. People can tell the difference.

Similarly, J18, while not perfect, was acceptable and was so accepted.

Hyde Act was downright duplicitous, insulting, and unilaterally rewrote the J18 agreement between India and the US. No one in this GoI has supported Hyde; they have only contended that it is not relevant to India or will be overriden by a future US Congress approval of 123.

Even the negotiation of this flawed 123 has been implicitly justified by GoI and its supporters (Pranab Mukherjee, and KS, to name two) as a necessity so that we can proceed to the all-important next step of getting NSG waiver. KS is on record as saying that if we do not like 123, we don't need to buy anything from the US after the NSG waiver has been obtained.

KS should clarify what his stance would be if Hyde/123 are reflected in the NSG waiver language.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 06:15

sraj,

Since you accuse me of insulting your intelligence, kindly desist from ever addressing posts to me. Kindly deal only with mortals with your high level of intellect. Since I cannot match that level of intellect, I'm forced to put you on ignore. You may do the same with me given that I insult your intelligence.

Thank you.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2008 06:17

These agreements - 123/IAEA so far - are no agreements. They are interpretable deals, with a deliberate framework to circumvent the more stringent laws. How can India and the US agree when their positions are diagonally opposite? It cannot happen. Smoke and mirrors. It will last till the smoke blows or the mirrors crack. The first crack will come when India approaches the US for reproc techs.

A good agreement (123/IAEA/NSG) would shut down all NPA agencies. These deals will keep them humming for ages to come.

Any move to make the NSG waiver as interpretable as the 123 would be disastrous. With 123 India will be dealing with one country and at worst one President. A NSG waiver structures after the 123 would only mean that India will have to deal with all 45 members on that basis. It would not make any sense.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 06:22

NRao,

If we go with the notion that every agreement we sign says "India is the greatest country on earth. Feel free to buy any nuclear techonolgy while performing tests above and below ground and we'll even pay for clean up" then we might as well never wake up.

India would be foolish to approach the US for reprocessing and/or enrichment technology. Even if the US gives it, we will have too many strings tied to it. If we seek ENR, Russia or France is the way to go.

Every agreement, including the one we accepted here when we became BR members is interpretable. However, it is vital to have red lines and language that is unacceptable under any circumstance. So far, India has been able to keep the redlines from being crossed in the 123 and IAEA safeguards agreement. If the NSG waiver (a) does not mention penalties for testing or even "consultations after testing" and (b) does not explicitly forbid ENR, we have a possibility for an acceptable draft. Let's see the second cut.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 27 Aug 2008 06:23

Rangudu wrote:sraj,

Since you accuse me of insulting your intelligence, kindly desist from ever addressing posts to me. Kindly deal only with mortals with your high level of intellect. Since I cannot match that level of intellect, I'm forced to put you on ignore. You may do the same with me given that I insult your intelligence.

Thank you.

Done.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Aug 2008 06:24

NRao wrote:These agreements - 123/IAEA so far - are no agreements. They are interpretable deals, with a deliberate framework to circumvent the more stringent laws. How can India and the US agree when their positions are diagonally opposite? It cannot happen. Smoke and mirrors. It will last till the smoke blows or the mirrors crack. The first crack will come when India approaches the US for reproc techs.

A good agreement (123/IAEA/NSG) would shut down all NPA agencies. These deals will keep them humming for ages to come.

Any move to make the NSG waiver as interpretable as the 123 would be disastrous. With 123 India will be dealing with one country and at worst one President. A NSG waiver structures after the 123 would only mean that India will have to deal with all 45 members on that basis. It would not make any sense.

They want to create a new NPT with this NSG agreement and formalize it in a legal manner.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 06:28

If "they" have the power to install puppets in Indian leadership to make India sign all these Cap, Rollback, eliminate deals then how come they already haven't taken our nukes away? Maybe they paid off our scientists to cause Pokhran-2 to fail and then claim otherwise.

Therefore we are all screwed, NSG or not.

I suggest that first post of this thread be like that of the TSP News thread, only it should say - "This deal is bad, India is screwed, MMS is a traitor, beware of foreign agents posting here and only deal opponents have intelligent arguments that cannot be refuted."

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Aug 2008 06:28

Acharya wrote:
NRao wrote:These agreements - 123/IAEA so far - are no agreements. They are interpretable deals, with a deliberate framework to circumvent the more stringent laws. How can India and the US agree when their positions are diagonally opposite? It cannot happen. Smoke and mirrors. It will last till the smoke blows or the mirrors crack. The first crack will come when India approaches the US for reproc techs.

A good agreement (123/IAEA/NSG) would shut down all NPA agencies. These deals will keep them humming for ages to come.

Any move to make the NSG waiver as interpretable as the 123 would be disastrous. With 123 India will be dealing with one country and at worst one President. A NSG waiver structures after the 123 would only mean that India will have to deal with all 45 members on that basis. It would not make any sense.
They want to create a new NPT with this NSG agreement and formalize it in a legal manner.

Bingo.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2008 06:33

After talks with experts from Argonne Labs and the Hanford site, the reactors and ENR go hand in hand. One cannot mix and match them. So, India cannot buy GE reactors and use Russian ENR to deal with the waste. Or, a Russian reactor and French ENR.

I do not think India has managed to keep red-line issues out - reproc tech is one. And, while India toots uninterruptible supply - the Goddess herself has said that is not true. Even PM and SD have contradicted - even before they have the deal ratified.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Aug 2008 06:35

NRao wrote:T
A good agreement (123/IAEA/NSG) would shut down all NPA agencies. These deals will keep them humming for ages to come.

It will start with a clear understanding that we are an NWS.
It will be demonstrated with the US telling the NSG that we get India in or disband.
It would not have had a Hyde.
And it most certainly would be one where we don't feel the need to rush it.
Why, after all our work, are we hoping to be pleased by a waitlisted ticket in the unreserved compartment of the new world order?

But, to go back to Mr. Rangudu's point, what facts, really were proven or disproven after 123?
Should we, honestly, go back and start with J18, Hyde, 123, IAEA, NSG and look at it from the perspective of our energy needs, and position as an NWS and how we've fallen (in my opinion)? I am game.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Aug 2008 06:37

We are overlooking a very simple fact; I don't think we are yet ready for a strategic relationship with the US. If we had one, US would provide us data to simulate New clear pathakas ( as it did with its strategic allies like UK and France), or provide covert support like with Israel, or simply overlook transfer of tech like China. None of this is happening; in fact we are prodded and asked to give more. This does not look like friendship between to able powers or a strategic relationship. It is more like an entrapment. It is done by a government that does not enjoy any support in India on 'nationalistic' ground. It is de facto headed by a foreigner, by a leader who has not yet won even a mayor's post, whose patriotism has been doubted by many (from Jaswant Singh to Cong's own backroom boys), who has in the past starved the newclear program of funds......anyway this does not inspire confidence.
Now some many years from now when we are more formidable, I am sure we can make a far better deal, more acceptable to us, until then there is no need. The sky is not falling, why the rush?
rgds,
fanne

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 06:39

NRao,

1. If you read the recent reports you'd realize that the primary scenario that we get ENRs is as a sweetener to add to big reactor deals by Russia or France. In other words, most of our reactor buys are going to be Areva or Rosboronexport.

2. Condi's statement pertains to US reactor sales. And besides, so what? You expect her to say "No no, we'll sell reactors to India and when they test we'll send them laddoos?" That is the whole reason for lifetime fuel supply guarantees and the provision to stockpile.

Overall, what did you expect - An agreement that says - "This treaty allows India to test as many bombs as it chooses to without any consequences and in fact requires any person critical of Indian nuclear tests to be sentenced to 15 years RI in the Tihar Jail"?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2008 06:42

They want to create a new NPT with this NSG agreement and formalize it in a legal manner.

It is called GNEP. Grassroot work, within the US, started some years back.

Fanne,

Red Flag did not count?

The US is not capable of understanding Indian strategic needs.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Aug 2008 06:43

Should the first line of the thread be -
This deal is great, India is going to be a super power, MMS is the best thing since sliced bread, beware of Indian fools who can neither think rationally nor see beyond their prejudice posting here and only deal supporters have intelligent arguments that cannot be refuted.
Humbly yours
fanne

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Aug 2008 06:44

Yes, and upholding the GNEP appears to be a part of the US-RU 123, too.
(Added: In response to NRAO, one post up.)

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 06:51

fanne ji,

If not for 2-3 of us like N3 & me, everyone else is opposing the deal, so your post cuts no ice. And BTW none of us question the patriotism of deal opponents (except CPIM people). Your posts gratuitously made reference to alleged monetary gains or a need to impress American friends. If you seek a discussion, perhaps you can avoid calling the other party a traitor. Or if you believe the other part is indeed on the take, go ahead and say so openly. Thank you.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Aug 2008 06:54

Please read that even Red flag was marred with incidents of spooking SU30MKIs. There are photos of its radar open in hanger besides F-18s!! We indeed have a strategic relationship; we are invited to Red flag and then spied upon!! Strategic relationship indeed!!!

It is like the Hollywood movies, we complain that these Hollywood wallas ignore us, they do not acknowledge our existence, and they prey on our longing for this recognition. They do show us but in poor light, like a pagan burning his bride, or sitting in front of TajMahal praying to be rescued from aliens by great warriors of US. Similarly in litrary award, they only acknowledge those Indians, who are willing or dishing their own country. They manufacture heros for us (since we are not capable of producing our own). Why this agreement be any different. We feel proud that we are being engaged; only we fail to see like everything else, it is only to make us a looser.
Now I understand that all this is generalization but it does build a context. While we should see this deal on its own merit, it cannot be divorced from things happening around. And on the merit of the deal, I will believe PK Iyengar more than MMS or any other enlighten soul in this part of the world. If he says it is bad, then it is. period!!
rgds,
fanne

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Aug 2008 06:59

After talks with experts from Argonne Labs and the Hanford site, the reactors and ENR go hand in hand. One cannot mix and match them. So, India cannot buy GE reactors and use Russian ENR to deal with the waste. Or, a Russian reactor and French ENR.

Not so.
The same PUREX process used in Indian PHWRs works with LWR, MOX etc fuels. It all gets chopped up and dissolved in nitric acid. There are small differences with oxide fuels and other types (solvents used etc) but this appears to be minor. The British Sellafield plant handles fuel from all over the world, from a variety of reactors.

Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation
by National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on ... - 1996 - Technology & Engineering - 571 pages

there are no major reprocessing differences between spent fuels made with enriched Uranium and those using recycled Plutonium as the fissile isotope (Mixed Oxide MOX fuels)

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Aug 2008 07:16

Rangadu Sir,
Let me say this, do I think you are a patriot, I would be honest and upfront - yes. Not long ago, we were two of a kind in this forum. Then you did something more than I or most of us in the forum did, you would write your thoughts (letter, articles) out to the press instead of just pontification on this forum. You definitely had 1 talent, had your ways with the words. I remember the day your first letter was published and you shared here in the forum. At least I felt proud of that. Then it was many more letters and articles. I guess you had come across a group of people who were sympathetic to our cause and would see our point of view. Now that is a testimony of achievement for a person who did that without any institutional backing. Suddenly you were regular at Washington times, a conservative paper (apart from many others).
Now as I say I do not doubt your patriotism at all. Let me tell you a hypothetical situation. It has happened to many 'patriotic' people in the past. I will take Nehru as an example. Even Mahatma Gandhi would fit the bill if you understand why he would accept partition. Nehru was a patriot. He had many shortcomings that might have played a role in the decisions that he made, but let’s pretend he had none except that he had friends on the British side. These friends had helped him with his goal of getting Independence for his country. It was not that his friends wanted to grant independence but the situation was such that it was inevitable. Nehru would see that these 'friends' helped him in many small things that made achieving the goal easy. He had seen it first hand and had proof of it. Now his friends were patriotic people (UK). In Nehru the saw a person who had the credibility. By granting him many favors, Nehru delivered to his people many things and people had great confidence in him. All along his friends on the other side wanted one thing; they wanted to further interest of their country. They would get his papers and articles published etc etc. Their country interest demanded that India (and I will keep it simple) that JK does not go to India and even if it does, they have a strategic leverage. They went and convinced Nehru that going to UN was the right thing. They ended up convincing a very learned man, a respected lawyer, a patriot that taking the JK case to UN was the best course of action. They showed him how west would help him in getting JK (when the army could have gotten it anyway). At that time Nehru, the patriot was convinced that that was the right course of action. His friends (Mountbatten et al) had successfully manipulated the situation and the man.
Now could it be possible that a person with deep patriotic feeling (and hence credible) was set up for that? Can that really happen? Is it that I am paranoid? Is it all conspiracy? Has it happen before?
I don’t know sir. But you did ask a question, and I am answering that, only on patriotic front, I believe you are!!
Thanks,
fanne

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2008 07:19

I was told that each reactor, based on the reactor design, the waste is very different. The best are the French - since they have pretty much a single design and therefore a very predictable waste set. Since they have been able to deal with that waste for years, they have nearly perfected how to treat it (not reprocess). The next come Japan. The US and Russian are last since they have a variety of waste. In fact, there are some waste in the US that has never been treated - they have no clue what is in it (I was reliably told).

When I mentioned 123, etc, I was very specifically informed that India should stick to one, perhaps two, reactor designs - for this reason alone.

In addition I was informed that waste from Indian reactors in an unknown entity - to the US scicom. That US scicom knew very little of Indian reactors.

The guys I know are way up there, in this area. google produces a few pages on one of them. They have been making presentations for years and one of them has produced a material to contain nuclear waste as part of a DOE project.

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Aug 2008 07:22

fanne wrote:Now I understand that all this is generalization but it does build a context. While we should see this deal on its own merit, it cannot be divorced from things happening around. And on the merit of the deal, I will believe PK Iyengar more than MMS or any other enlighten soul in this part of the world. If he says it is bad, then it is. period!!
rgds,
fanne

Fanne Sir,

Please don't let a small matter like generalising complex geopolitical moves by India disturb you.

We must all be on our guard. The whole world is out to screw us. And Indians (of course apart from us smart guys) don't even realise that.

We should cut off all ties with the evil US of A and its chelas. (Of course that does not include allowing Indians to live there, work there, make money there and wail about the idiots who live in desh and make a mess of things).

We should also cut off ties with the Chinese and their chelas and we should cut off all ties with the Russian Bear and its chelas.

Sit at home keep the powder dry and become a hermit nation otherwise everyone will screw us badly.

And Oh by the way float a campaign for P K Iyengar as the life long PM/President of India! I'm sure that's going easy, afterall if the foolish Indian aam admi can be convinced to vote UPA then I'm sure they'll vote for Iyengar.

One final point, I think we should renegotiate a Nooklear deal with the US of A only after our GDP crosses the US$1,000,000,000,000 trillion mark. I hope (gulp!) by then pipsqueaks like NZ will think twice before thumbing their nose at us.

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Aug 2008 07:25

So now we sit on judgment on the part played by Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru on the Partition of India?

Well I suppose we need timepass till Sept5!

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Aug 2008 07:30

Many folks here like NRao, Ramana, Sraj et al have expressed very valid points which potentially can be a cause of concern as far as the NSG waiver/nuclear deal in concerned.

While I've not necessarily agreed to these points, I feel they should be highlighted and discussed as they represent very important POVs.

I'm sorry to say that unfortunately, in my IMVHO, some of the anti-deal posts that have appeared on the past two pages only dilute the arguments against the deal. I mean, if we have bring Red Flag and acts of omission/commission of Nehru during Partition of India to say the deal is bad, then that does show desperation!

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Aug 2008 07:34

amit wrote: We must all be on our guard. The whole world is out to screw us. And Indians (of course apart from us smart guys) don't even realise that.

I know you use the present tense, but if we change that to the past, let's see:
Turkey, check, Persia, check, China, check, Pakistan, check, Central Asia, check, UK, check, USA, check, RU, almost a check...Gee, what would ya know, every jerk who wanted to have a loot came right on and screwed us, starting with a deal. Thanks to our good nature, we are bunnying along just the same. You'll excuse me if being on-guard looks like a better norm, perhaps.

But, I digress. Let's get back to the deal.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 07:38

amit,

Thank you for the initiative. Can you help summarize the most up to date criticisms of the deal as we head into NSG Phase-2? I was hoping that we can have a discussion largely filtering out the noise but the emotions are such that even people like sr are resorting to personal attacks. Regardless, let's at least get the points on the table. From what I can glean:

1. The possibility of NSG waiver talking of "consultations" in the context of an Indian n-test is worrying. I made a point that so long as consultations are mentioned without explicitly mentioning an Indian test, as was done in the 123, we should be okay.

2. ENR denial or quasi denial is another sticking point but what are the redlines here other than an explicit denial?

What else?

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Aug 2008 07:39

samuel wrote:I know you use the present tense, but if we change that to the past, let's see:
Turkey, check, Persia, check, China, check, Pakistan, check, Central Asia, check, UK, check, USA, check, RU, almost a check...Gee, what would ya know, every jerk who wanted to have a loot came right on and screwed us, starting with a deal. Thanks to our good nature, we are bunnying along just the same. You'll excuse me if being on-guard looks like a better norm, perhaps.

But, I digress. Let's get back to the deal.

Samuel,

It is good to be on guard and it's even more important to know your history.

However, there's a fine line between being on guard and being paranoid. Being on guard crosses this fine line when there's a distinct lack of self confidence.

All I say we wait till Sept5 to see the revised draft. If it cross our red lines we walk. If it doesn't then we do the deal.

I'll be in the forefront of folks crying foul if the Indian Govt agrees to the revised NSG draft which cross the well defined red lines that have been explicitly outlined.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 07:42

^^ I second that, amit. To me if there is a mention of nuclear tests in any manner other than referring to our voluntary moratorium then it crosses the redline. That's the one I'm most worried about. I don't see ENR as a problem because there are indications that the language will leave it up to individual states and Russia will give it to us provided Indo-Russian ties are okay and we commit to a large reactor deal with them. Testing is my main concern, therefore.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Aug 2008 07:43

The French COGEMA's Le Hague plant reprocesses fuel from all over the world, from many different types of reactors.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Aug 2008 07:46

This is a very interesting thread, now only in its 35th page. Still so young and so short, because most postors' posts don't show up to most other postors since they are on each other's "IGNORE" list.

I too think it needs a few stipulations at the top:
1. The purpose of the US-India Agreement is to Cap, Rollback and Eliminate the Indian nuclear program.
2. India's nuclear deterrent has no credibility because what was tested at Pokhran was all Gobar Gas, and anyway it was not weaponized.
3. India MUST conduct tests of 1MT - 100MT hydrogen bombs before the UPA govt. steps down, so that the new BJP government (which is guaranteed) can simply declare another Unilateral Morarjitorium.
4. The 123 Agreement was simply the Hyde Law (this one takes the cake, actually, for distortion of reality).

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Aug 2008 07:46

Naah Sameul,
The whole world is out there to help us. It is only we hippocratic Indians who live in the west, make money here, live at their largess cannot see it. Since we Indians, who live there, work there, make money there and wail about the idiots who live in desh and make a mess of things, have anyway sold our souls, we cannot be patriotic.
Well naah let le take a step back, yes I can be many things, maybe I am, lets's start from the beginning, I am a hypocrite, I live on largess of a society but I don't necessarily feel paying it back by betraying my country, I am even a looser, I don't earn enough, I look ugly, even I come from a questionable family, I have all the vices in me..but then how does that stop me from being patriotic, wishing good for my motherland.
Sometimes, things people say apply mostly to them, they know in their heart, so if they earn in a foreign land, make tons of money feel obligated to screw their motherland for their adopted country. Excuse me I would rather be a hypocrite, immoral, ehsanframosh then a traitor.
Thanks,
fanne

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Aug 2008 07:48

Rangudu wrote:amit,

Thank you for the initiative. Can you help summarize the most up to date criticisms of the deal as we head into NSG Phase-2? I was hoping that we can have a discussion largely filtering out the noise but the emotions are such that even people like sr are resorting to personal attacks. Regardless, let's at least get the points on the table. From what I can glean:

1. The possibility of NSG waiver talking of "consultations" in the context of an Indian n-test is worrying. I made a point that so long as consultations are mentioned without explicitly mentioning an Indian test, as was done in the 123, we should be okay.

2. ENR denial or quasi denial is another sticking point but what are the redlines here other than an explicit denial?

What else?

R-man,

Your welcome.

Sometimes it's useful for folks here to realise everybody here is on the same side.

As regards the red lines, I would prefer to wait for the revised draft before commenting.

I hope you can do your trick and get a copy out asap!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 Aug 2008 07:51

Rangudu wrote:If not for 2-3 of us like N3 & me, everyone else is opposing the deal,

Perhaps the BR poll was rigged then...

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 27 Aug 2008 07:53

Is 2g gone?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 07:54

ShauryaT,

Voting on the poll does not equal thread participation. Based on email discussions elsewhere I'd think its reasonable to say that over 80% of deal opponents simply do not want to post here for various reasons. Since you brought up a metric, why not list posters on this thread by affiliation and see how it stacks up?

Seriously, do you believe that this thread has anywhere near a representative distribution of the spectrum of deal views?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Aug 2008 07:56

Could someone pls explain to me why India needs enrichment technology (for uranium, I mean, not for ppl)? The Pakis seem to be expert at this, with thousands and thousands of centrifuges.

What is the ENR that is causing so much heartburn? Why can't it be developed in India? I thought it was just a question of mass-producing centrifuges?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 27 Aug 2008 08:00

amit,

No trick here sir. Last time I lucked out because I had a hunch that either D.Kimball or J.Lewis would leak the agreement and I had their websites refreshed on my PDA

My bet is that if things go as planned, Kimball will release it moments after the NPAs within US govt leak it to him saying "Look at what the Indoos got away with"

The only other person who probably knows more is Mark Hibbs but unfortunately his journal costs $$$$

N^3,

We don't need the E part of ENR as much as we need the R part for our closed cycle plans. Other than supplying LEU, the Enrichment we are working on is for the ATV project and we can't expect foreign help on that. Anyway, given that the NPAs club E and R together, we need to make sure they are not excluded in our package.

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Aug 2008 08:00

fanne wrote:but then how does that stop me from being patriotic, wishing good for my motherland.

I suppose Fanne Sir this is a good example of being patriotic:

Nehru was a patriot. He had many shortcomings that might have played a role in the decisions that he made, but let’s pretend he had none except that he had friends on the British side. These friends had helped him with his goal of getting Independence for his country. It was not that his friends wanted to grant independence but the situation was such that it was inevitable. Nehru would see that these 'friends' helped him in many small things that made achieving the goal easy. He had seen it first hand and had proof of it. Now his friends were patriotic people (UK). {Aha, but Nehru was not a patriotic Indian but a foolish Indian who did not see thru these "friends"} In Nehru the saw a person who had the credibility. By granting him many favors, Nehru delivered to his people many things and people had great confidence in him. All along his friends on the other side wanted one thing; they wanted to further interest of their country. They would get his papers and articles published etc etc.{So Nehru depended on the favours of his British friends to get India Independence?} Their country interest demanded that India (and I will keep it simple) that JK does not go to India and even if it does, they have a strategic leverage. They went and convinced Nehru that going to UN was the right thing. They ended up convincing a very learned man, a respected lawyer, a patriot that taking the JK case to UN was the best course of action. They showed him how west would help him in getting JK (when the army could have gotten it anyway). At that time Nehru, the patriot was convinced that that was the right course of action. His friends (Mountbatten et al) had successfully manipulated the situation and the man.

PS: R-man congratulations! You are in exalted company being compared with Nehru!