Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 04 Aug 2007
Ayatollah Kimball is going senile and failing at his own comprehension. Maybe he needs to take the lunacy test soon to certify himself.
Here he states the following:
Here he states the following:
And then he turns around with this Gem contradicting himself.The fuel supply assurances that the United States is committed to giving India are not found in any other U.S. peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement, including those with parties to the NPT.
The United States has given long-term consent to reprocessing in only a few instances, namely in the case of Japan and EURATOM, who are NATO allies, and parties to the NPT.
N-deal with Japan some way off
Nuclear deal unlikely
Nuclear deal unlikely
Cabinet will soon meet to discuss the possible sale of uranium to India, following a deal between India and the US on nuclear technology.
Australia would first negotiate a nuclear safeguards agreement with India, Mr Downer said.
"We would like India to accede to the NPT," he said.
"I don't want to discourage those Indians who are supporting the signing of the NPT, good luck to them and I'm right behind them, but I'm not very optimistic," Mr Downer said.
I have come to the conclusion the 123 agreement is good. BC is wrong on Hyde and infact Hyde is only a form of cooperation basis scope guideline, the real enforcement does not mention national laws only international. The Ayatollahs are hopping mad and going senile. Kakodkar et al seem satisfied as a way forward. I think BR should collectively say yes to 123 and watch out for NSG/IAEA/Cotus steps. Once this is done, then Bush & MMS get enshired in history as the movers and shakers for the historic turning point in US-India rapproachment and friendship.
BCs credentials
sorry if this has been posted:
video of burns about agreement...listen to it carefully re hyde.
burns brief
sorry if this has been posted:
video of burns about agreement...listen to it carefully re hyde.
burns brief
You missed the 'national laws' clause. Hyde is national law of USA.bala wrote:I have a disagreement with BC on his take on Hyde.
In this clause each party will adhere to its respective laws as far as scope of cooperation is concerned. My reading on this it is only a guideline so that they don't break any law of their own land. Hyde can state what if scenarios like Nuke Test but the President and Legal advisors will take into context the entirety and gravity of the situation when it comes to next course of action.
Now this articles states what is in Force and the Duration and it only talks about international law. No Hyde! ... ... .. . .ARTICLE 2 - SCOPE OF COOPERATION
1. The Parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
B.Challaney is precise like a surgeon. The devil is in what is consciously not put in the text. Wherever the agreement use the term national law, substitute Hyde Law and then the agreement will look lopsided. Compare the 123 act that China signed with USA and it will look unfavorable.
Unkill has a BIG level on India if this 123 agreement is accepted. After say 15 years it can screw India royally by pulling out of the agreement (for one of many easy reasons) and India will look like "Great Grand Sucker" to the world; No fuel to run nuclear plants purchased from abroad or built indigenously AND foreign nuclear plants that become duds (whose vital equipment has been removed to be returned) that can't be run even by using Indian fuel (like Tarapur was partly run on Pu & Uranium MOx fuel). An Idiot Donkey that is made a global laughing stock. I would rather close the possibility of that ever happening before India signs any Nuke instrument.
Last edited by Arun_S on 04 Aug 2007 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
America, India and the China bogey: A price too high
The rise of China is no reason to trample on the non-proliferation regime
The rise of China is no reason to trample on the non-proliferation regime
Hi Arun,
What do you make of Dr. Kakodkar's satisfactory statement. I wonder if the deal is satisfactory to him because it barely protects the strategic program, and say the 3-stage if we have to go it alone. And that is what he fought for...Everytime I read what he says, I find he stops short of being un-equivocal. Do you get that sense too?
S
What do you make of Dr. Kakodkar's satisfactory statement. I wonder if the deal is satisfactory to him because it barely protects the strategic program, and say the 3-stage if we have to go it alone. And that is what he fought for...Everytime I read what he says, I find he stops short of being un-equivocal. Do you get that sense too?
S
Arun_S wrote:You missed the 'national laws' clause. Hyde is national law of USA.bala wrote:I have a disagreement with BC on his take on Hyde.
In this clause each party will adhere to its respective laws as far as scope of cooperation is concerned. My reading on this it is only a guideline so that they don't break any law of their own land. Hyde can state what if scenarios like Nuke Test but the President and Legal advisors will take into context the entirety and gravity of the situation when it comes to next course of action.
Now this articles states what is in Force and the Duration and it only talks about international law. No Hyde! ... ... .. . .
B.Challaney is precise like a surgeon. The devil is in what is consciously not put in the text. Wherever the agreement use the term national law, substitute Hyde Law and then the agreement will look lopsided. Compare the 123 act that China signed with USA and it will look unfavorable.
Unkill has a BIG level on India if this 123 agreement is accepted. After say 15 years it can screw India royally by pulling out of the agreement (for one of many easy reasons) and India will look like "Great Grand Sucker" to the world; No fuel to run nuclear plants purchased from abroad or built indigenously AND foreign nuclear plants that become duds (whose vital equipment has been removed to be returned) that can't be run even by using Indian fuel (like Tarapur was partly run on Pu & Uranium MOx fuel). An Idiot Donkey that is made a global laughing stock. I would rather close the possibility of that ever happening before India signs any Nuke instrument.
Anyone who consciously says "India has lost its right to test" should be tarred and feathered. 
Testing nukes is not a right. It is a choice and may be a necessity. Calling it a "right" is like saying that you give up the "right" to belch loudly by joining a country club and signing a "manners" clause. You don't. If you've had a good meal and decide to belch loudly, you will pay a price but to belch or not to belch is still your choice.
God. How can people be so stupid!
Testing nukes is not a right. It is a choice and may be a necessity. Calling it a "right" is like saying that you give up the "right" to belch loudly by joining a country club and signing a "manners" clause. You don't. If you've had a good meal and decide to belch loudly, you will pay a price but to belch or not to belch is still your choice.
God. How can people be so stupid!
-
gashish
- BRFite
- Posts: 272
- Joined: 23 May 2004 11:31
- Location: BRF's tailgate party, aka, Nukkad thread
A very good example of strawman argument!Gerard wrote:America, India and the China bogey: A price too high
The rise of China is no reason to trample on the non-proliferation regime
1) India should be nuclear pariah as it is not member of NPT (Original position)
2) The deal is being signed to hedge against China(Strawman)
3) China is not a serious threat (Knock down the strawman)
4) So don't offer nuclear co-operation to India (re-assert the orignal position)
wah bhai wah..economist is having hard time to reconcile with rising india that it is flagrantly biased against her.
This is factually wrong.Gerard wrote:America, India and the China bogey: A price too high
The rise of China is no reason to trample on the non-proliferation regime
India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 , inspiring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it, like Pakistan and Israel, never signed, and which its agreement with America perhaps fatally undermines.
-
enqyoobOLD
- BRFite
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
- Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
They can afford it but it would be politically difficult... it would be seen as an outrageous waste of money... billions of taxpayer dollars for useless radioactive waste? From a foreign country? To be stored on American soil? To be offloaded by US port workers?
They can always have it returned via special couriers. One suitcase each. Carried by a Paki jehadi.
Away we go a-glow
To sunny Guantanamo..
Arun_S,Arun_S wrote: Unkill has a BIG level on India if this 123 agreement is accepted. After say 15 years it can screw India royally by pulling out of the agreement (for one of many easy reasons) and India will look like "Great Grand Sucker" to the world; No fuel to run nuclear plants purchased from abroad or built indigenously AND foreign nuclear plants that become duds (whose vital equipment has been removed to be returned) that can't be run even by using Indian fuel (like Tarapur was partly run on Pu & Uranium MOx fuel). An Idiot Donkey that is made a global laughing stock. I would rather close the possibility of that ever happening before India signs any Nuke instrument.
Let's say we place an order for GE reactor today, I tend to think it will take at least 5 yrs to come online.
Thats the reason the fuel accumulation allowed over next 5-7 yrs for our existing 14 safe-guarded is the benchmark on whether we proceed on acquiring more reactors.
Let's say after 15 yrs Uncle screws us royally by pulling out of agreement leaving us with no fuel supply . Isn't it akin to placing an oil embargo in today's context wherein our economic survival is at stake. What will be our reaction to such an event in current context and after 15 years? Is it an act of war?
May be after 5 years we publish a doctrine on this exact scenario.
The Economist is an Atlanticist mouthpiece. They don't want their pet American superpower leaving the European orbit.gashish wrote:A very good example of strawman argument!Gerard wrote:America, India and the China bogey: A price too high
The rise of China is no reason to trample on the non-proliferation regime
1) India should be nuclear pariah as it is not member of NPT (Original position)
2) The deal is being signed to hedge against China(Strawman)
3) China is not a serious threat (Knock down the strawman)
4) So don't offer nuclear co-operation to India (re-assert the orignal position)
wah bhai wah..economist is having hard time to reconcile with rising india that it is flagrantly biased against her.
why not just have a 10 year deal, renewable in 10 year chunks then? there is a 40yr commitment under a nearly stationary regime. nothings going to happen in 5-7 years. we'll be too busy signing contracts. further there is a five year latency between signing and online. wait 5 years to sign tthat's 10 years, for how many reactors? you'll commit to 20 or so reqd. for the 15GW deficit in 5 years based on what happens to fuel on civil list?milindc wrote:Arun_S,Arun_S wrote: Unkill has a BIG level on India if this 123 agreement is accepted. After say 15 years it can screw India royally by pulling out of the agreement (for one of many easy reasons) and India will look like "Great Grand Sucker" to the world; No fuel to run nuclear plants purchased from abroad or built indigenously AND foreign nuclear plants that become duds (whose vital equipment has been removed to be returned) that can't be run even by using Indian fuel (like Tarapur was partly run on Pu & Uranium MOx fuel). An Idiot Donkey that is made a global laughing stock. I would rather close the possibility of that ever happening before India signs any Nuke instrument.
Let's say we place an order for GE reactor today, I tend to think it will take at least 5 yrs to come online.
Thats the reason the fuel accumulation allowed over next 5-7 yrs for our existing 14 safe-guarded is the benchmark on whether we proceed on acquiring more reactors.
Let's say after 15 yrs Uncle screws us royally by pulling out of agreement leaving us with no fuel supply . Isn't it akin to placing an oil embargo in today's context wherein our economic survival is at stake. What will be our reaction to such an event in current context and after 15 years? Is it an act of war?
May be after 5 years we publish a doctrine on this exact scenario.
ok, just sign the agreement and make sure u have enough fuel for existing reactors before u commit to new reactors. Isn't that an option?samuel wrote: why not just have a 10 year deal, renewable in 10 year chunks then? there is a 40yr commitment under a nearly stationary regime. nothings going to happen in 5-7 years. we'll be too busy signing contracts. further there is a five year latency between signing and online. wait 5 years to sign tthat's 10 years, for how many reactors? you'll commit to 20 or so reqd. for the 15GW deficit?
Without this agreement do we have enough fuel to sustain existing reactors and build new ones?
Last edited by milindc on 04 Aug 2007 08:11, edited 1 time in total.
Samuel,
I don't get your question.
A fuel reserve is a fuel reserve. An empty box is just that, an empty box. And we aren't going to dump fuel on open ground are we?
The size of the fuel reserve will increase every time we buy a foreign reactor or put a domestic one in the safeguarded list. As for the the exact modalities on how the fuel reserve is going to be filled up over whatever period of time and the exact sequencing of events in filling it up, I do not know. But I trust the GoI to be careful in coming up with that.
I would expect that something like the following would be done: If the reactor needs X tons of fuel per year and has a design lifetime of Y years, then a certain P% of X*Y tons of fuel should already be delivered upfront to go in the reserve before the reactor goes critical and the remainder of that X*Y tons to be delivered over a period of Z years once the reactor goes critical.
The ideal scenario would be if P is a 100 and hence Z is 0. But I think that is not a realistic expectation to have.
I don't get your question.
A fuel reserve is a fuel reserve. An empty box is just that, an empty box. And we aren't going to dump fuel on open ground are we?
The size of the fuel reserve will increase every time we buy a foreign reactor or put a domestic one in the safeguarded list. As for the the exact modalities on how the fuel reserve is going to be filled up over whatever period of time and the exact sequencing of events in filling it up, I do not know. But I trust the GoI to be careful in coming up with that.
I would expect that something like the following would be done: If the reactor needs X tons of fuel per year and has a design lifetime of Y years, then a certain P% of X*Y tons of fuel should already be delivered upfront to go in the reserve before the reactor goes critical and the remainder of that X*Y tons to be delivered over a period of Z years once the reactor goes critical.
The ideal scenario would be if P is a 100 and hence Z is 0. But I think that is not a realistic expectation to have.
Right, so the context and metric against which we weigh any deal must be the calculationsmilindc wrote:ok, just sign the agreement and make sure u have enough fuel for existing reactors before u commit to new reactors. Isn't that an option?samuel wrote: why not just have a 10 year deal, renewable in 10 year chunks then? there is a 40yr commitment under a nearly stationary regime. nothings going to happen in 5-7 years. we'll be too busy signing contracts. further there is a five year latency between signing and online. wait 5 years to sign tthat's 10 years, for how many reactors? you'll commit to 20 or so reqd. for the 15GW deficit?
Without this agreement do we have enough fuel to sustain existing reactors and build new ones?
. How long would it take us to get to realize the 25% goal with our own resources?
. How will that 3-stage process be accelerated by a deal.
- Further, with the least damage to our "sovereignty" (put in quotes for a lack of better word).
If people know the answer to that question, it would be easy to measure the utility of this deal. The rest, joining the league of nations, etc. are by products and ancillary to this fundamental interest.
According to discussions here the strategic deterrent is potent. Enough Pu there. Enough pu to also start stage three. 500MW FBRs are coming up, Kamini will scale up and by 2017 "thorium reactors" will be up, though that does not say at what scale. Is it fair to conclude that we will have things in place by 2037 to meet the 25% goal?
Will this deal allow us to get there by 2020?
Hypotheticals, I know. But that's where I am basically stuck in deciding whether a bad deal, as I see it, is worth it or not.
Hi Sparsh,
I think you got it.
There is a certain proportion of the rate at which fuel is consumed that becomes the reserve rate and the reserve capacity might be that times the life time or some proportion of the lifetime, or something such.
The point is that this strategic reserve though is a reasonable thing to interpret, it is also a quantifiable thing that has not been defined. You say that GoI will come up with some good number, but if the US is going to help us with a strategic reserve in concept, that is very different than agreeing to the number GoI will come up with.
For example, here is what Hyde says:
Hyde
Page 4:
So, it certainly is not a well-defined quantity, which will have to be negotiated. Is this a trivial issue? Maybe, maybe not. If we decide that we need a good part of the lifetime covered over all reactors, the US may go, are you nuts? What they may come up with may not be the civilian equivalent of the minimum interruption deterrent we seek.
In the end, the devil will be in the details. At this level, the strategic reserve is a concept, and ambiguous in definition (what factors go into computing it), and undefined quantitatively.
S
PS: I became a brfite!
I think you got it.
There is a certain proportion of the rate at which fuel is consumed that becomes the reserve rate and the reserve capacity might be that times the life time or some proportion of the lifetime, or something such.
The point is that this strategic reserve though is a reasonable thing to interpret, it is also a quantifiable thing that has not been defined. You say that GoI will come up with some good number, but if the US is going to help us with a strategic reserve in concept, that is very different than agreeing to the number GoI will come up with.
For example, here is what Hyde says:
Hyde
Page 4:
It is an important enough issue to make it into Hyde, for them.(10) Any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to
the Government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear
facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating
requirements.
So, it certainly is not a well-defined quantity, which will have to be negotiated. Is this a trivial issue? Maybe, maybe not. If we decide that we need a good part of the lifetime covered over all reactors, the US may go, are you nuts? What they may come up with may not be the civilian equivalent of the minimum interruption deterrent we seek.
In the end, the devil will be in the details. At this level, the strategic reserve is a concept, and ambiguous in definition (what factors go into computing it), and undefined quantitatively.
S
PS: I became a brfite!
Sparsh wrote:Samuel,
I don't get your question.
A fuel reserve is a fuel reserve. An empty box is just that, an empty box. And we aren't going to dump fuel on open ground are we?
The size of the fuel reserve will increase every time we buy a foreign reactor or put a domestic one in the safeguarded list. As for the the exact modalities on how the fuel reserve is going to be filled up over whatever period of time and the exact sequencing of events in filling it up, I do not know. But I trust the GoI to be careful in coming up with that.
I would expect that something like the following would be done: If the reactor needs X tons of fuel per year and has a design lifetime of Y years, then a certain P% of X*Y tons of fuel should already be delivered upfront to go in the reserve before the reactor goes critical and the remainder of that X*Y tons to be delivered over a period of Z years once the reactor goes critical.
The ideal scenario would be if P is a 100 and hence Z is 0. But I think that is not a realistic expectation to have.
Last edited by samuel on 04 Aug 2007 08:15, edited 1 time in total.
Arun,
The Americans can not arbitrarily terminate the agreement for bogus reasons without paying a price for it.
We can then start taking arbitrary "corrective measures" if they do something like that. As that term is not explained further we can use our imagination to impose punitive measures and pass them off as "corrective measures".
The Americans can not arbitrarily terminate the agreement for bogus reasons without paying a price for it.
We can then start taking arbitrary "corrective measures" if they do something like that. As that term is not explained further we can use our imagination to impose punitive measures and pass them off as "corrective measures".
Guys,
You all are missing the forest for the trees. This agreement is part of an overall adjustment of ensuring that India has a stake in the "current global system". You cannot have a large country such as India which is increasingly a part of the global economic system and yet a pariah on the important issue of nukes. The west which owns and runs this global system learnt a very important lesson during the process of the cold war and that is to ensure that competition is "managed" that its potential adversaries and/or any potential significant mover and shaker on the global stage has a stake in the preservation of the existing order. This lesson was learnt during the cold war in which the west and the communist bloc existed at least economically in two different worlds literally. This made it possible to contemplate nuclear destruction of the opponent without theorically affecting your own eco system. Ofcourse as the respective arsenals built upto to MAD levels and beyond, it dawned on both sides, that any victory would be pyrric. Therefore, after the end of the cold war in favour of the west, the global economic system has very carefully ensured that China is included in it. And the Chinese ofcourse being smart have also realized that competition in this new world encompasses not only the nuclear arena but more importantly the economic arena and both are interdependent and towards that end they have build up formiddable strenghts i.e their export strengths and their foreign currency reserves which ensures that they have a say in the running of the global strategic/economic architecture. They have stated that they are ready to have a multi faceted relationship i.e. competition? India in contrast is increasingly a part of the global economic system. Therefore it is only logical that it has a say and stake and ensures that its nuclear status is "regularized". Because otherwise, India will in any event not have the ability to move against other countries militarily and at the same time be persona non grata on the nuke front. Now to ensure that it has increasing economic clout to ensure its voice on the global stage, India should capitalize on this agreement just as China capitalized on its "own agreement" with the west and in a period of 25 years, made it the country that it is today. And that is not the US-China nuke agreement I am talking about, but the US opening to China in 1972 and the subsequent Chinese modernization from 1979 onwards.
So folks like BC who look at it through purely nuclear lens are looking at only half the picture or less. Now folks will say that India can on its own and without the benefit of this agreement make its own clout felt on the global economic stage just as China did. The unfortunate (fortunate?) part there is that within India because of its democratic system of governance and multi ethnic society, there has to be consensus among various groups to agree to a common path forward. China in contrast being a totalitarian state can afford to have a Great Leap Forward (backward?), have 20 million peasants killed, launch wars with all of its neighbours and yet recover from all those follies because the price was paid by the people who do not have a voice unlike the very voluble people of India.
All in all, IMO this agreement does a good job of recognizing India's position. Could it have been better. Possibily. But the holy grail that many jingoes and EBs (Energizer Bunnies) want of India being recognized as a P-5 state and the UN security council seat etc. are something that India will have to work at by getting bigger economically while preserving and refining its existing nuclear deterrent.
People who compare the US-China agreement should realize that when that agreement was signed, China was a member of the P-5 and such a recognized nuke power. That P-5 system was born out of the victors of WW2. Ultimately power has to be won on the battlefield and cannot be negotiated at a bargaining table. Considering that this agreement was negotiated at a bargaining table, I would say that India has done well.
You all are missing the forest for the trees. This agreement is part of an overall adjustment of ensuring that India has a stake in the "current global system". You cannot have a large country such as India which is increasingly a part of the global economic system and yet a pariah on the important issue of nukes. The west which owns and runs this global system learnt a very important lesson during the process of the cold war and that is to ensure that competition is "managed" that its potential adversaries and/or any potential significant mover and shaker on the global stage has a stake in the preservation of the existing order. This lesson was learnt during the cold war in which the west and the communist bloc existed at least economically in two different worlds literally. This made it possible to contemplate nuclear destruction of the opponent without theorically affecting your own eco system. Ofcourse as the respective arsenals built upto to MAD levels and beyond, it dawned on both sides, that any victory would be pyrric. Therefore, after the end of the cold war in favour of the west, the global economic system has very carefully ensured that China is included in it. And the Chinese ofcourse being smart have also realized that competition in this new world encompasses not only the nuclear arena but more importantly the economic arena and both are interdependent and towards that end they have build up formiddable strenghts i.e their export strengths and their foreign currency reserves which ensures that they have a say in the running of the global strategic/economic architecture. They have stated that they are ready to have a multi faceted relationship i.e. competition? India in contrast is increasingly a part of the global economic system. Therefore it is only logical that it has a say and stake and ensures that its nuclear status is "regularized". Because otherwise, India will in any event not have the ability to move against other countries militarily and at the same time be persona non grata on the nuke front. Now to ensure that it has increasing economic clout to ensure its voice on the global stage, India should capitalize on this agreement just as China capitalized on its "own agreement" with the west and in a period of 25 years, made it the country that it is today. And that is not the US-China nuke agreement I am talking about, but the US opening to China in 1972 and the subsequent Chinese modernization from 1979 onwards.
So folks like BC who look at it through purely nuclear lens are looking at only half the picture or less. Now folks will say that India can on its own and without the benefit of this agreement make its own clout felt on the global economic stage just as China did. The unfortunate (fortunate?) part there is that within India because of its democratic system of governance and multi ethnic society, there has to be consensus among various groups to agree to a common path forward. China in contrast being a totalitarian state can afford to have a Great Leap Forward (backward?), have 20 million peasants killed, launch wars with all of its neighbours and yet recover from all those follies because the price was paid by the people who do not have a voice unlike the very voluble people of India.
All in all, IMO this agreement does a good job of recognizing India's position. Could it have been better. Possibily. But the holy grail that many jingoes and EBs (Energizer Bunnies) want of India being recognized as a P-5 state and the UN security council seat etc. are something that India will have to work at by getting bigger economically while preserving and refining its existing nuclear deterrent.
People who compare the US-China agreement should realize that when that agreement was signed, China was a member of the P-5 and such a recognized nuke power. That P-5 system was born out of the victors of WW2. Ultimately power has to be won on the battlefield and cannot be negotiated at a bargaining table. Considering that this agreement was negotiated at a bargaining table, I would say that India has done well.
Last edited by ldev on 04 Aug 2007 08:26, edited 1 time in total.
From inside out it is choice. For India it is a choice. A friend will understand this, an enemy will not. (Understand is not agree.)Rangudu wrote:
Testing nukes is not a right. It is a choice and may be a necessity. Calling it a "right" is like saying that you give up the "right" to belch loudly by joining a country club and signing a "manners" clause. You don't. If you've had a good meal and decide to belch loudly, you will pay a price but to belch or not to belch is still your choice.
Against pressure from outside it is a right. To explain it to a bunch of yahoos - who refuse to understand, leave alone agree - it is right.
The act of testing is the same.
There will always be enough text to support that statement.This agreement is part of an overall adjustment of ensuring that India has a stake in the "current global system".
But, let India turn towards China - for instance - and let us see what happens to that chair/stool at the table.
Just an observation.
-
BSR Murthy
- BRFite
- Posts: 187
- Joined: 02 Apr 2003 12:31
- Location: Texas
End of nuke apartheid against India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 254468.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 254468.cms
Basically, India gets to have a military and a civilian programme, without being an NPT signatory. That’s a breakthrough not often recognised in India lost in debating the minutiae. The second spectre was the ghost of Tarapur. In 2005, when Indian officials started negotiations with the US on civil nuclear issues, their best hope was to get something on Tarapur. They got a nuclear deal instead, because, as US officials told them, the effort for Tarapur and for a full-blooded nuclear deal would be more or less the same.
No I did not miss it. I saw this but then look at the clause once again. Its scope is about cooperation and implementation by each party. So let us assume that. US is bound by hyde. Yes. Is India bound by Hyde. No. That is a major distinction. Even if the US is bound by Hyde what can they do about it in practical terms. The other clauses in the treaty are enough of a deterrent for any US President to comtemplate any drastic action. Net result nothing can be done as far as the scenario: India tests nukes. The US can take back all of its uranium, its material but needs to comply with ensuring that India has alternate supplies for civilian nuke power. Just think about the logistics of all of this and the counter effort of US obtaining alternate sources for India. Too much hoopla for a US president to be bothered with.You missed the 'national laws' clause.
If I was heading GOI at this moment, I would accept and sign this Civil Nuclear cooperation agreement.
All things taken together it is more than advantageous to Indian interests while it may seem to temporarily limit Indian options in military & political space. As far as temporary constrains on military options are concerned India has to offset it by further strengthen economic and diplomatic muscle.
As senior BRFites have said many time National strength is built on 3 wheels: Military, Economic and Political.
It is suicidal to think that Economic power can grow without investing in and growing commensurate military & political strength. (Lessons of Nehru's military disaster must be ever deemphasized in school and polity).
Similarly economic and political muscle should supplement & step in during this guarded period when strategic nuclear capability is at 95% of what it should be to match other countries with advanced nuclear capabilities.
Time to sign the deal and move forward.
All things taken together it is more than advantageous to Indian interests while it may seem to temporarily limit Indian options in military & political space. As far as temporary constrains on military options are concerned India has to offset it by further strengthen economic and diplomatic muscle.
As senior BRFites have said many time National strength is built on 3 wheels: Military, Economic and Political.
It is suicidal to think that Economic power can grow without investing in and growing commensurate military & political strength. (Lessons of Nehru's military disaster must be ever deemphasized in school and polity).
Similarly economic and political muscle should supplement & step in during this guarded period when strategic nuclear capability is at 95% of what it should be to match other countries with advanced nuclear capabilities.
Time to sign the deal and move forward.
Nuclear Power Corp in JV play
KOLKATA: Nuclear Power Corp of India’s JV negotiations with four of the world’s top nuclear equipment suppliers have been put on fast-track. It is in talks with two US vendors, General Electric and Westinghouse, France’s Areva and Russia’s Ros-Atom. The talks assume significance following the release of the draft text of the ultra-sensitive Indo-US civilian nuclear technology sharing deal on Friday.
“Friday’s development is yet another advance towards the Indo-US nuclear deal. We are in exploratory talks with General Electric, Westinghouse, Areva and Ros-Atom for a possible JV. Discussions will now be taken to the next level so that NPCIL can expedite the process once the civilian nuke deal is signed,â€
KOLKATA: Nuclear Power Corp of India’s JV negotiations with four of the world’s top nuclear equipment suppliers have been put on fast-track. It is in talks with two US vendors, General Electric and Westinghouse, France’s Areva and Russia’s Ros-Atom. The talks assume significance following the release of the draft text of the ultra-sensitive Indo-US civilian nuclear technology sharing deal on Friday.
“Friday’s development is yet another advance towards the Indo-US nuclear deal. We are in exploratory talks with General Electric, Westinghouse, Areva and Ros-Atom for a possible JV. Discussions will now be taken to the next level so that NPCIL can expedite the process once the civilian nuke deal is signed,â€
-
Dileep
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
- Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Do you believe that you own the software you run on your PC, for which you paid? Ever read the EULA of the evil empire?I think the language is not ambiguous. Look at the exact words: It says India's reactors, i.e. reactors belonging to India which is what foreign reactors become once we pay for them.
GE can very well license a reactor to us. Of course we can choose not to take it.
I agree.joey wrote:Mods is it possible to archive the second last previous thread which is in archive, there are many good analytical posts regarding who Indias civilian deal does not aids to Indian nuke programme in any way.
I have copied/moved previous few threads on this topic from "Trash Can" to "Nuclear Issues Archive". { -Arun_S; Admin Hat on}
-
enqyoobOLD
- BRFite
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
- Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
Some1 pls kindly explain to me what the following means:
IOW,
1) what is the price-to-equity ratio of this stock if I buy it as an initial investor? ( I have this $1245,000,000,000,000,000 to invest..)
2) Assuming a 15-year ROI, what is the profit needed per year on my investment to get a 10% per year compounded ROI?
3) Assuming a plant with four 700MW reactors, all operating at a total 85% power factor every year for 15 years (rather optimistic), and a 10% power loss in transmission (VERY optimistic), and an operating cost of U.S. $3c per KWH, what is the cost of power that has to be charged, to get this sort of ROI?
I'm trying to c why ppl would invest in this deal, unless their real plan is to use the reactor property as a bridgehead to set up an invasion of India, and sell drugs and run Massage Parlors and Madarssas under the domes
("Quattr Grand Teton Massage Parlor") . So I know how much to charge for my upcoming GoPu's Gobar Gas GigaPlant.
70:30 debt-to-equity ratio
IOW,
1) what is the price-to-equity ratio of this stock if I buy it as an initial investor? ( I have this $1245,000,000,000,000,000 to invest..)
2) Assuming a 15-year ROI, what is the profit needed per year on my investment to get a 10% per year compounded ROI?
3) Assuming a plant with four 700MW reactors, all operating at a total 85% power factor every year for 15 years (rather optimistic), and a 10% power loss in transmission (VERY optimistic), and an operating cost of U.S. $3c per KWH, what is the cost of power that has to be charged, to get this sort of ROI?
I'm trying to c why ppl would invest in this deal, unless their real plan is to use the reactor property as a bridgehead to set up an invasion of India, and sell drugs and run Massage Parlors and Madarssas under the domes
("Quattr Grand Teton Massage Parlor") . So I know how much to charge for my upcoming GoPu's Gobar Gas GigaPlant.
-
Rishirishi
- BRFite
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30
Unkill has a BIG level on India if this 123 agreement is accepted. After say 15 years it can screw India royally by pulling out of the agreement (for one of many easy reasons) and India will look like "Great Grand Sucker" to the world; No fuel to run nuclear plants purchased from abroad or built indigenously AND foreign nuclear plants that become duds (whose vital equipment has been removed to be returned) that can't be run even by using Indian fuel (like Tarapur was partly run on Pu & Uranium MOx fuel). An Idiot Donkey that is made a global laughing stock. I would rather close the possibility of that ever happening before India signs any Nuke instrument
If India is incredably stupid, it will purchase a dozens nuclear power plants from US, France etc. In that case India will be at the mercy of those powers. Not only regarding to nuclear testing but also all other sort of blackmail.
However India can Choose to carefully purchase the tech piece by piece. Purchase only a few reactors and learn. Make the Americans, Russians and French to Invest in the reactors (so that any embargo, causes economic damage to the respective countries). India can choose to stock nuclear fuel. In short, India can avoid becomming dependant.
Now if we do not have any treaty, what do we gain from that? We can test weapons, if in our interest, but that can also be done with the treaty in place, as long as India does not make the mistake of becomming dependant.
I have said it before but like to repete it again. The text of the document has practically no meaning. No one can enforce the text, and nothing can be done if it is breached. What matters at the end of the day are the capabilities of the respective nations to threat, squeeze, bargain, embargo, and buy.
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/bahardutt/ ... rests.html
it appears green light for uranium mining from meghalaya Domisiat area.
it appears green light for uranium mining from meghalaya Domisiat area.
Your verbal trenchance aside, the question is not 'right to test' but the issues are: 1) what price/cost is set out of your own volition, and 2) should it be necessary, would you be willing to go for the kill despite the costs.Rangudu wrote:Anyone who consciously says "India has lost its right to test" should be tarred and feathered.
Testing nukes is not a right. It is a choice and may be a necessity. Calling it a "right" is like saying that you give up the "right" to belch loudly by joining a country club and signing a "manners" clause. You don't. If you've had a good meal and decide to belch loudly, you will pay a price but to belch or not to belch is still your choice.
God. How can people be so stupid!
With someone like MMS/Sonia in power, who are allergic to enhancing our nuke might in the first place, who would be willing to give up our nukes and get into bed with TSP as the west's 'South Asian' poster boys exemplyfing good behavior, these constrainst and costs will further metastasize their degenerate views on India's staretgic nukes. This is what those of us who are ambivalent about this deal fear, and none has articulated this fear better than the erudite Brahma Chellaney.
I have read the 123 and I am reading it again over Andhra-style filter coffee this Saturday morning, but given the volume of support this deal has among the eminent ones on this forum, I am reluctantly signing on, hoping that MMS/Sonia get booted out, and future leaders with a robust nationalistic strain will strike a hard bargian when faced with USA's skulduggery by invoking Hyde masquerading as international law.
.here is my logic:
US is bound by Hyde.
We are not, Hence we can buy if America sells.
Later America after a successful business waits for the bait.
India gives in either at Doha or Iran or elsewhere in a non NATO perspective.
America invoke Hyde (perhaps seeing ATV in the pacific).
Sanctions start.
India starts begging again to other countries who will further chew us in price (russia and france). Oz will just quit.
If it can take 10 years to dabol to really do business, then westinghouse and other nuclear energies will perennial shuts down., or India perennial becomes a NATO partner, "Yes Sir"-ing ever after.
US is bound by Hyde.
We are not, Hence we can buy if America sells.
Later America after a successful business waits for the bait.
India gives in either at Doha or Iran or elsewhere in a non NATO perspective.
America invoke Hyde (perhaps seeing ATV in the pacific).
Sanctions start.
India starts begging again to other countries who will further chew us in price (russia and france). Oz will just quit.
If it can take 10 years to dabol to really do business, then westinghouse and other nuclear energies will perennial shuts down., or India perennial becomes a NATO partner, "Yes Sir"-ing ever after.
-
enqyoobOLD
- BRFite
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
- Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
No need for worry, CRamS.
When NDA wins the election by a landslide in 2009, we can have the T-M* Bill passed, incorporating the essential elements listed above. This will supersede the Hyde Act and all such garbage.
President PP is a very nationalistic person onlee, and she will sign off on it, no problem.
Anyway, per William Dalrymple, India is on the verge of overtaking the Japanese economy, and by 2050 (that's only 3 strike delay extensions on the completion date of the first imported reactor under this "123" deal) India will have overtaken US.
If u look at those projections, u will c the Westerners are rushing to tie up India with all sorts of agreements while they can. They r just following the famous strategy that I use in stock-trading, with very predictable results:
*: So named for its famous authors, Dr. Puneesh Taneja, ISRO Chief Scientist on Deputation, and Dr. Dim N. Mishra, Chief Strategic Expert, at Pioneer
When NDA wins the election by a landslide in 2009, we can have the T-M* Bill passed, incorporating the essential elements listed above. This will supersede the Hyde Act and all such garbage.
President PP is a very nationalistic person onlee, and she will sign off on it, no problem.
Anyway, per William Dalrymple, India is on the verge of overtaking the Japanese economy, and by 2050 (that's only 3 strike delay extensions on the completion date of the first imported reactor under this "123" deal) India will have overtaken US.
If u look at those projections, u will c the Westerners are rushing to tie up India with all sorts of agreements while they can. They r just following the famous strategy that I use in stock-trading, with very predictable results:
FLUNK NOW! AVOID THE RUSH LATER!
*: So named for its famous authors, Dr. Puneesh Taneja, ISRO Chief Scientist on Deputation, and Dr. Dim N. Mishra, Chief Strategic Expert, at Pioneer