Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread

bala · Post by **bala** » 20 Sep 2007 10:31

Cant believe I am apologizing to you Sanku, but mistakes happen, and thank you for pointing out mistakes, but you know the "S" name is becoming synonymous.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Sep 2007 10:55

bala wrote:Cant believe I am apologizing to you Sanku, but mistakes happen, and thank you for pointing out mistakes, but you know the "S" name is becoming synonymous.

Thats all right my friend; I am not here on a jehad; I dare say as time passes you will perhaps see that my POV has merits as well and you may accept that I was not wrong on some other counts as well.

Please do exercise some "open mindness" and see that all who hold a particular POV may not necessarily be "commies"

fighting and bad blood amongst us do not help us. Disgareements should not be disagreeables.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Sep 2007 12:07

Sanku wrote: The real damage would have been done by then. They were keeping their eyes open for one weak link in the chain; and once identified and broken; it becomes far more difficult to put the chain together again.

Sorry Sanku,

This sounds too much like a dial'a conspiracy theory to me.

It can be argued, and many have done with sound arugments, that the deal was wrongly negotiated.

It can also be argued that India should have waited for a while more, in order to get stronger and have its three stage programme on a more firmer footing, before negotiating the deal.

Or one can even say we don't even need a 123 kind of deal.

But by making comments like one weak link in the chain without solid proof that can stand to severe scrutiny, instead of quoting this article and that, we are calling an entire gamut of politcal leaders as well as some very top civil servants traitors. I'm not buying that.

Call them constables, chaprasis or people lacking in vision or simpy bad negotiators but don't imply they are traitors without substantiating.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Sep 2007 12:12

NK Ayub seems strangely silent on this thread nowadays.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Sep 2007 14:43

amit wrote:
But by making comments like one weak link in the chain without solid proof that can stand to severe scrutiny, instead of quoting this article and that, we are calling an entire gamut of politcal leaders as well as some very top civil servants traitors. I'm not buying that.

Call them constables, chaprasis or people lacking in vision or simpy bad negotiators but don't imply they are traitors without substantiating.

Clarifications Amit Sir;

I have no love lost for Dr Singh; yet I have never called him (or anyone else) names; by weak link in the chain; all I mean is that they were looking for a person over whose eyes they could pull wool over.

I may think that Dr Singh is not a good PM but I have never called him a traitor or sell out or any such words.

As such my understanding of weak link is just that -- a weak PM in the chain of policy makers who was caught in the persistent attempts that US has been making to get us on their side on their terms. That is it no more and no less. There are no conspiracy theories here. Further this is my opinion and mine alone; I do not call this a fact; I clearly said what I said was my attempt to make sense of the situation from a mango junta perspective.

I hope that clarified.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Sep 2007 14:54

Sanku wrote: Clarifications Amit Sir;

I have no love lost for Dr Singh; yet I have never called him (or anyone else) names; by weak link in the chain; all I mean is that they were looking for a person over whose eyes they could pull wool over.

I may think that Dr Singh is not a good PM but I have never called him a traitor or sell out or any such words.

As such my understanding of weak link is just that -- a weak PM in the chain of policy makers who was caught in the persistent attempts that US has been making to get us on their side on their terms. That is it no more and no less. There are no conspiracy theories here. Further this is my opinion and mine alone; I do not call this a fact; I clearly said what I said was my attempt to make sense of the situation from a mango junta perspective.

I hope that clarified.

Sanku,

Fair enough. I'm sorry, it seems that I misunderstood you.

However, I would think the PM, however powerful, is not the sole decision maker in a deal of this importance. And we're all agreed that MMS is not a very strong PM.

It seemed to me that the weak link analogy was being applied to the collective (decision/ploicy makers and negotiators) and not just to the PM.

Anyway my last post on this subject.

Cheers!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Sep 2007 15:04

amit wrote: However, I would think the PM, however powerful, is not the sole decision maker in a deal of this importance. And we're all agreed that MMS is not a very strong PM.

It seemed to me that the weak link analogy was being applied to the collective (decision/ploicy makers and negotiators) and not just to the PM.

Not a problem Amit; at least you are not out for my blood in the way half the forum seems to be

misunderstanding is okay if politely resolved.

The PM in our country has always been the final authority; hence Dr Singh is answerable; the buck has to stop there. However in reality it seems to be a situation spun by Sonia G. and her advisory board in addition to Dr Singh. However unfortunately for our democracy; they are all outside the realm of accountability. So it is Dr Singh who must stand or fall alone being the face of the deal in India. (Note none of his partymen or allies have come out in support) The only person speaking being Kapil Sibal other than Dr Singh.

As I have said before; I do not include the role of Babu's too highly in this game; Babu's are not policy makers; this is a purely policy game; Babu's are instruments (I mean in the positive way) they can do a good job but only what they are intended to do.

And having got the last word in the discussion

over and out.

Cheers..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2007 22:20

From the other bland thread:

ramana wrote: Teh saag article is quite comprehensive and insightful.

The â€˜123â€™ is the skeleton. The flesh would have to be put in the right places in due course.

This is correct. This would determine whether it develops into a Mohini or a Frankenstein.

True, true.

However, the question is who is going to put some flesh on it? The US, India or some combo of both? Is it going to be purely nuclear or as the Hyde Act states, would it include some Foriegn Policy issues - as is already being done? Are the FP issues a staged event?

Like I said before, needs a strong Indian leader. KS did make some noise on the front that was comforting. (What Iran?) But time will tell.[/quote]

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 20 Sep 2007 22:33

India is going to be in trouble if India engages with the US before it has resolved all the questions of the Foreign policy direction, and before Indian politicians do not dump in their lungis when they are told to use the military power of the state to further its interests.

The politicians are willing to break any law and commit any crime to stay in power in India, and yet the same brazenness is lacking where it is really required to protect Indian interests --- in the arena of Foreign Politics.

Enagaging with the US with an empty head bereft of a vision for India will only result in the US filling Indians with their vision, and soon enough, it will become "India's vision 2020" too.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2007 22:51

kumarn wrote:Bomb on a Bullock Cart

Chief problem for India's nuclear advocates, of course, is their nation's deep emotional attachment to the principles of nonviolence, as practiced by Gandhi and internationally canonized by the late Jawaharlal Nehru. In a speech to students last week, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Nehru's successor, loyally insisted: "We cannot change our conviction because of China's action."
....
India's scientists, who think differently, are confident that they can explode a nuclear device within 18 months.
....
Homi J. Bhabha. chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, even maintains that the price is right. In a recent broadcast. Bhabha said that less than $21 million would buy a stockpile of 50 atomic bombs; for an additional $10 million, India could build 50 two-megaton H-bombs. Western experts agree with Bhabha's figures.

wow! How much is $21m in today's terms?

Asked one skeptic: "What would we use to deliver an atomic bomb? A bullock cart?"

Its interestng that Bhabha was thinking of the 2MT ones just as Karnad keeps talking about them!

I think what HJB was saying is that India would match whatever was the currency of power given the will and drive.

In the early 60s there used to be books - "India's nuclear option", "Must the bomb" spread and so on which used to catalog Indian capabilities built up in the fifties. The impression was that it was only JLN's Gandhian association that was stopping India and not the technology or resources. And there used to be books "After Nehru?" etc.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 20 Sep 2007 23:10

http://publication.samachar.com/pub_art ... ?id=273658

India should diversify its arms purchases (and buy from the US), so that the US has greater leverage towards India's behaviour in the future, when the US is going to need a lot more US leverage to contain India and "balance" India and China.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2007 23:16

Claude Arpi- Has the PM thought about his grandchildren?

Has the PM thought of his grandchildren?

Claude Arpi

September 19, 2007
In recent years, very few topics have received as many comments, columns, articles or cover stories as the nuclear agreement signed by the Manmohan Singh [Images] government with the United States administration.

I have to admit that, like many in India, the more I read about the now famous (or infamous) 123 Agreement, the more I get confused.

Not being an expert -- there are very few in this country -- I should probably keep quiet, but I cannot resist putting down some points which I believe have not been stressed enough during the debate.

When one asks, 'Why this deal?' the usual answer from the government is that India is doing extremely well economically, the growth may soon reach 10 per cent and in order to sustain the tempo, energy is needed.

Like China, India has become an ogre devouring more and more power. While the government is working hard through vigorous energy diplomacy to cope with the shortage of petroleum products, the scene on the power front is rather grim. There is a shortage of electricity to run the ever-growing 'economic' machine, to which you have to add the increased 'needs' of the Indian middle class for cars, air conditioners, etc.

When it is said that the nuclear deal with the US will help India to solve its energy's problems, it is far from true.

It can only help in producing more electricity. A small percentage (3.4 per cent) of the total electricity generated today comes from nuclear energy (4020 Mwe in 2006-2007).

Through the deal, the government is attempting to increase this percentage. The Atomic Commission admits, 'We have to examine all fuel resources in the country and tap them keeping short, medium and long term scenarios in perspective. Hydro potential and renewables must be exploited to the maximum possible extent and in as short a time-frame as possible.'

But its conclusions are: 'These together with coal would meet short and medium-term requirements, but to meet long-term requirements, it is necessary to exploit nuclear resources.'

But is the nuclear option really a long-term one?

In the US today, only 4 per cent of the total energy requirement is produced by nuclear energy; worldwide, the figure is even smaller -- 2 per cent. Only France [Images], which has invested a lot in this sector in the 1970s, produces 78 per cent of its electricity -- 16 per cent of the total energy consumption -- from nuclear reactors.

Apart from civilian use, nuclear energy is also used for military purposes -- to produce atomic bombs. The 123 Agreement requires India to separate its civilian and military reactors in a phased manner. The civilian reactors will come under international safeguards monitored in perpetuity by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This will be the condition for India to import fuel to run the civilian reactors.

After the Pokhran nuclear tests, the US put a ban on having nuclear business with India. This included trade in nuclear power equipment and also nuclear fuel. Once the Agreement is implemented, the US will lift the ban.

Though abuses have been flying high in the media about the possibility of conducting further nuclear tests, one question has hardly been discussed: does India need further testing?

In an interview with India Today, Anil Kakodkar, chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, surprisingly said that 'testing' has 'nothing to do with the deal.'

His remarks were, however, rather vague: 'The 1998 tests, although the number was five, in terms of configuration and ideas, a very large number of them were tested out. And the most important thing was that everything that was tested worked. That did provide us with a fairly high degree of confidence. So in terms of building deterrence we had said that time itself it was adequate.' Deterrence only!

Bharat Karnad, the nuclear expert, is probably closer to the truth: 'The 1998 tests raised some grave doubts about the thermonuclear and 'boosted fission' devices that were exploded. These prototype weapon designs need to be reworked and tested and re-tested in order for them to acquire credibility as operational weapons which can perform reliably and with safety.'

With an 'arsenal quality frozen at a relatively primitive level,' it means India has only two alternatives today: Either to conduct new tests (and the 123 Agreement will be terminated) or do simulations for which very powerful computers are needed.

After the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government had declared a moratorium on the tests following Pokhran II, it is doubtful if any government can risk the ostracisation of the past. The solution is therefore computer simulation. And it is probable that New Delhi hopes to get access to sophisticated equipment which will allow Indian scientists to proceed with their military research.

Has the Manmohan Singh government already signed a deal behind the deal to get the required equipments? It is very possible. And in any case, once the 123 deal is through with the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, computer merchants will be flocking to Delhi to do business.

It would also be wrong to believe the US is doing a favour to India by signing the deal. The deal is opening huge business opportunities for Washington, as well as other Western nations and Australia. Let us not forget that the US suffered a great deal from the post-test ban, as several less strict nations jumped to the opportunity to do business with India.

The deal is also a way for Washington to play the India card against China. A stronger nuclear India could help the US administration balance the rise of China in Asia. Like during the Cold War, the US prefers to fight a proxy war rather than a direct one. One easily understands the advantages of such a policy. This also explains the aggressive reactions of Beijing [Images] and their proxies in Delhi.

Manmohan Singh, probably knowing that the latter bark louder than they bite, is not overtly worried, Even if his government is dismissed, he will become the hero of India's economic development.

But the China factor remains nevertheless crucial.

Let us remember Vajpayee's letter to Bill Clinton [Images] after the 1998 test. The Indian prime minister wrote: 'We have an overt nuclear weapon State on our borders, a State which committed armed aggression against India in 1962. Although our relations with that country have improved in the last decade or so, an atmosphere of distrust persists mainly due to the unresolved border problem.'

The central question is whether nuclear energy is the solution for the future. It is rather surprising than nobody in the Indian media has raised the issue.

Several countries in the West, particularly Germany [Images] and Spain, are on the way to close their nuclear plants because nuclear energy is not considered a 'clean' energy for two reasons: There is a risk of accidents (for example Chernobyl), and nobody knows how to dispose the waste. In 1999, Germany decided to definitively close all its plants and ban new ones. It is generally accepted that it will be done by 2020, the year India plans to generate 20,000 MW of nuclear energy.

The most serious issue is the decommissioning of these nuclear plants. The problem may not be a burning one for India, which is just jumping in a big way onto the nuclear bandwagon, but it will have serious consequences 30 years hence.

In January this year, seven nuclear reactors have been decommissioned in Europe, four in Great Britain, two in Bulgaria and one in Slovakia. To decommission its four plants, it will cost British taxpayers 103 billion Euros. If France -- with its 58 reactors -- decides to decommission the reactors, the bill will be at least five times higher.

Scientists have not yet found any safe and easy means to dispose of the nuclear waste, which may remain radioactive for thousands of years. France has planned to bury them in a site near Bure in Meuse district. Many believe it is a crime against future generations, because in 1,000 or 10,000 years the soil and the aquifers may get polluted; the contamination is bound to come back to the surface.

Without speaking of a Chernobyl-like situation, nuclear plants are also constantly generating contaminated equipments and materials. Unfortunately, there is no cost-effective solution for their safe disposal yet.

In March, the European Council has adopted a set of very constraining rules. Its member-States will have to compulsorily produce 20 per cent of their electricity by renewable sources, and despite France's resistance, nuclear energy was not listed as a renewable energy. During the same period, Europe has decided to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent, to 30 per cent.

The two-pronged policy -- increased renewable energy and reduction of consumption through energy-efficient industry, habitat or life style -- has been agreed upon. It was not an easy decision, but the future of the planet is at stake.

In India, the 123 Agreement will probably ultimately go through, but nuclear energy can certainly not be called the 'energy of the future.'

Has the prime minister weighed all the expensive collaterals for his grandchildren?

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 21 Sep 2007 02:18

Something happened in 1965 - the US tried to give Kashmir and Kutch to Pakistan - and its famed Patton tanks and Sabre jets got whipped.

In January 1966, HJB was killed in an Air India Boeing 707 that slammed into Mont Blanc. I think there is every reason to suspect that it was like the Kanishka crash. There wasn't much enthusiasm to investigate either, so u can draw ur own conclusions about who was behind that.

The claims about the Hydrogen bomb etc. have to be taken with the usual hajaar kilograms of salt and Pu. India was in a famine situation at that time, and the war with TSP had wiped out the foreign exchange reserves.

I think the article about US urging India to develop nukes, threaten China etc, are all psyops.

Hence the silence, abcc. Besides, no point trying to reason above the noise level of the EB's drumbeat.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 21 Sep 2007 02:24

In January 1966, HJB was killed in an Air India Boeing 707 that slammed into Mont Blanc.

Coincidentally, his plane crashed the same day IG was sworn in as PM ( I I think she is above reproach here).

The only motive that I can think in light of the discussion we are having was to set the Indian program back by a few years if not derail the whole thing.

Did the syndicate have a role to play here?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Sep 2007 02:26

Paul wrote:
In January 1966, HJB was killed in an Air India Boeing 707 that slammed into Mont Blanc.
Coincidentally, his plane crashed the same day IG was sworn in as PM ( I I think she is above reproach here).

The only motive that I can think in light of the discussion we are having was to set the Indian program back by a few years if not derail it. Did the syndicate of those days have something to do with it?

What about China

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 21 Sep 2007 02:29

Reason I said the syndicate was that they had a pro west image and IG was still a goongi gudiya.....after Shastri died they must have been pulling the strings from behind the scenes as evidenced by their installation of IG as PM.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Sep 2007 04:39

Many people in India seem to think the main question is whether India needs a nuclear weapon or not, and once India has weapons, that automatically provides Indians with a "Credible Minimum Deterrent".
Now, if the CMD is actually non existent and the Govt. of India is lying to the people, as it usually does, then the Indian people basically have no protection from China or Pakistan, and furthermore, India has to depend on American benevolence to ensure that India's security concerns are met.

o What is deterrence?

Deterrence is in two parts: Mental and Physical -- the former is more important since that is what actually determines whether a weapon is frightening enough to preempt any attacks by hostile forces. The latter is required when the enemy "calls our bluff".

o Why do we need to continually test a nuclear deterrent (either live or via simulations)?

Take the case of a man armed with a knife -- the man can be confident in his ability to defend himself only if the Knife is not only in good working condition, but also that it can stand up to other knives in the marketplace. In the case of a knife, periodically "testing" the knife to make sure that time and usage has not dulled the knife --- that last thing the man wants is to find out that the knife is dull when faced with three thugs in a dark alley.

In the case of nukes, the problem is made harder by the fact that there have to be multiple weapons, ALL of them in guaranteed working order (barring statistical rates of failure). This is basically a problem similar to Sylvania-laxman manufacturing light bulbs -- the company has to ensure that failure rates are within acceptable boundaries, otherwise the light bulb is a bulb only in name.

A nuclear weapon is similarly an engineering product that needs to be tested in order to ensure that it works when the Indian people depend on it to save their lives when a fat bank account will not do the job.

Just like the knife has to be periodically sharpened, a nuke deterrent has to be tested, live or via simulations.

o How is deterrence measured?

Deterrence is easier when look at in a target-specific manner.
If the target is china, then right level of deterrence with respect to china would be an arsenal that will GUARANTEE (in the statistical sense -- this is important) to deliver a specific yield Y using N weapons.

So if India has enemies A,B, and C that it needs to deter, then Y_A, Y_B, and Y_C are the yields needed to deter the enemies, where Y = Y_A + Y_B + Y_C.

Note that selecting valuable enemy targets is part of this exercise, since the objective is to maximum the cost to the enemy per unit yield.

The total nuclear arsenal that India needs to maintain as long as nuclear deterrence is a means of defending ourselves.

So given a target yield Y and a weapon quality indicated by a parameter L and the quantity indicated by a parameter N.

Then, For a deterrent to be credible against all possible targets, a state that requires total yield Y and has N weapons of quality L, must always guarantee that the following is true: Y < L *N

o What is a normalized deterrent?

To logically think about the quality of a deterrent, the yield needs to be taken out of the picture, and the focus should be on the quality of the deterrent. A normalized deterrent is an abstract weapon that delivers unit yield to a target.

o What is credibility?

Credibility is the certainty of a unit-yield (normalized deterrent) delivering the promised yield. So, in the normalized world, credibility is always a real number betweeen 0 and 1.

and credibility is Ln *Nn.

Note that Ln and Nn are actually functions of time in reality.

o How does testing affect credibility?

The quality of an untested weapon is a monotonically decreasing function of time, that can be derived based on the design of the weapon.

Since Ln is a decreasing quantity, one of the primary requirements of maintaining a deterrent is ensuring that Ln remains constant over time.

o What does NPT and CTBT do?

They are framed by the P-5 to ensure that no other country can ever develop a weapon to challenge the well-engineered and well-tested arsenals of the P-5.

o What is the probability of an untested weapon working in the long-term?

Zero.

o How does 123 compromise this?

The technology required to high-tech testing is still disallowed for India since all of it comes under "dual-use" items, that cannot be exported to India. India must develop these testing facilities on its own, and PM Manmohan singh has already made sure that India no longer has this ability. PM Manmohan Singh just compromised the long-term credibility of the nuke arsenal and is now lying to the public about it.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Sep 2007 04:46

Paul wrote:Reason I said the syndicate was that they had a pro west image

Syndicate was the puppet of the west

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Sep 2007 05:07

Maybe the plan was to get some duffer govt. in India to sign up to 123, sign up local laws to reflect four-letter treaties, percolate those clauses to multilateral agreements, and then later on do a 123-Hyde bait-and-switch and make the duffer GoI that assisted the US as the fall guy for compromising the deterrent. pretty brilliant, actually, and speaks volumes of the kind of coordinated planning a true world power can execute.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 21 Sep 2007 07:17

Edited by ramana to get rid of the mangling of the post while trying to get rid of the color fonts by others.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 21 Sep 2007 07:25

A jekyll act is a good, effective solution to mendacious, deceptive treaty language designed to ensnare india into doing something we aren't ready for yet.

Wish the INC and BJP could tolerate each other enuf to just get such an act thru parliament once....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Sep 2007 07:46

well.. why would not be this conspiracy theory be true?

Some say, Shastri was being done in by Indira, with subtle help from the Khans, and more so importantly, the Russians mistook Shastri might fall into western hands, and helped Indira to get the desired relationship, plus mighty military orders.

Again the same people say, Shastri would have done P2 then, and it would have been P60 and more now, and a different nation that would have never seen people like laloo.

sope, technically, we were the P5, and Chinese would have been P6. It was a well planed move by the trio, Russia, USA and double-crossing Indians (desh dhrohis).

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Sep 2007 08:38

deleted

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2007 08:50

[quote="sraj"]Draft US Proposal circulated to NSG
[quote]Washington, Sept. 20: The Bush administration has told the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which controls the global commerce in nuclear material and technology, that it is seeking an exemption for India to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Paragraph 1. a. of a US proposal circulated among NSG countries states that the groupâ€™s member governments would agree to change the rules for India because they â€œdesire to contribute to an effective non-proliferation regime, and to the widest possible implementation of the objectives of the treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weaponsâ€

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2007 09:28

Apologies if its has been posted on another thread.

The fuel for a billion aspiring people and a trillion-dollar economy

AK makes a very compelling case for nuclear energy; but from a 3 cycle safe nuke format. Also talks about reactors with longer lives. I presume this will help alleviate the waste issues substantially.

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 21 Sep 2007 10:29

enqyoob wrote:Something happened in 1965 - the US tried to give Kashmir and Kutch to Pakistan

In January 1966, HJB was killed I think the article about US urging India to develop nukes, threaten China etc, are all psyops.

Some events around this time:
1. US helps create a situation (Tibet, Kalimpong etc) where India is at war with china (1962).
2. US ambassador urges a much weaker India to threaten a nuclear and millitaristic China, says this will fulfil US FP objectives in south asia. (1964 ?)
3. US tries to partition away kashmir and kutch for the pakis - arms the pakis, browbeats us directly.
4. LBS and HJB die mysteriously (were they going to make buddha smile?)

So what was the US FP objective for India/South asia? Here is my guess: Strengthen Pakistan; break India into 3-4 parts. Guess who will these new states go to for protection? So, now they have Pakistan in the pocket and all the broken up part as a bonus. Looks much like today's west asia. Replace Pakistan with Israel and India with a fragmented Arabia.

So they try all the possible options:
1. Help Pakistan in their adventures.
2. Incite china against india and India against china.

Vis-a-vis China, natually, India would have asked for nuclear insurance. That's were HBJ's comments make sense.

Of course they must have given all the verbal assurances to India and some help too, but india with nukes would have put paid to all their ambitions. Must have been a touch and go scenario, where they were helping India enough with nukes to gain our confidence and make us adventurous vis-a-vis china; but at the same time trying every possible way to prevent the actual development. So, did we get so close that they had to bump off certain people?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2007 10:41

Forgive me for asking a dumb question Ramana Guru and others; how does what happened in 65 is of relevance today?

I mean India is already Nuclear; the apple cart has been upset by IG; RG; PVNR; ABV and others. When you say 123 is method to link the goals in 65 to todays scenario; isnt too much changed on the ground to allow that kind of link up to happen? Or you are trying to say the real intentions are the same as those in 65 with different mechanisms?

Sorry if I dont see what you are getting at.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 21 Sep 2007 16:02

shiv wrote:

Have a heart and please do not use varying fonts and colors.

Sure, shiv, no problem. point noted.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 21 Sep 2007 17:26

Sanku wrote:Forgive me for asking a dumb question Ramana Guru and others; how does what happened in 65 is of relevance today?

I mean India is already Nuclear; the apple cart has been upset by IG; RG; PVNR; ABV and others. When you say 123 is method to link the goals in 65 to todays scenario; isnt too much changed on the ground to allow that kind of link up to happen? Or you are trying to say the real intentions are the same as those in 65 with different mechanisms?

Sorry if I dont see what you are getting at.

Lemme try explaining, though I might well myself be mistaken.

US foreign policy is driven by directives that last decades. It appears to be some sort of an unspoken supra-institutional consensus, not merely POTUS/COTUS driven.

As to what the consensus' aims are is open enuf (US superiority forever at whatever cost etc) but the means aren't as obvious, alas.

Inferring the means from what couldn't be obscured is an analyst favorite. Remember, when it comes to unkil's consensus, the 1960s aren't all that ancient as to be irrelevant. Far from it. Unkil studies and learns from its mistakes and its successes. In fact, be sure unkil studies our chankian scriptures more carefully than we do to divine our cultural makeup and predict our likely reactions to different crises etc.

Of course, there's no proof for all this, but events in the last century contain precious info on what worked and what didn't for unkil in remaking the world.

Hence, BRgurus' divination sessions on what unkil will steadily and surely navigate towards.

JMTPs and all that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2007 18:55

Vsudhir; thanks!

Assuming for a moment that your explantion of Ramana et al is correct (which seems very probable; however they can correct us if we are wrong); are they saying that US is still trying for trifurcation etc. of India? 123 deal is a step in THAT direction?

Or are they saying that trifurcation and 123 deal are two different mechanisms to cut India down to size? I may seem to be splitting hairs but I believe the above distinction is important.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 21 Sep 2007 19:22

ramana wrote:Claude Arpi- Has the PM thought about his grandchildren?

Has the PM thought of his grandchildren?

Claude Arpi

Like China, India has become an ogre devouring more and more power.

I take umbrage to this statement.

India's energy consumption grew 3.7%, while GDP grows by 8%.
Here it is :http://www.domain-b.com/economy/environ ... ption.html

All this while China even in 2005 had 9.9% GDP growth and 9.5% energy consumption growth. In 2004, China had a mind boggling 15.5% energy con growth.

India also produces only 4% of world's GHG pollution, while China has now overtaken the US as the world's largest polluter.

So, India is the prince charming, while China is the ugly ogre of world economy.

Subin · Post by **Subin** » 21 Sep 2007 20:00

enqyoob wrote:In January 1966, HJB was killed in an Air India Boeing 707 that slammed into Mont Blanc. I think there is every reason to suspect that it was like the Kanishka crash. There wasn't much enthusiasm to investigate either, so u can draw ur own conclusions about who was behind that.

I have a humorous anecdote to share on this. There are a lot of monkeys and other assorted wildlife species residing on the tall hill adjoining the main BARC complex in Trombay. During the hot summer months of April and May, their sources of water and food dry up on the hill, forcing them to come down from the hill to the grounds of the main BARC campus, to forage for food and water. It is not uncommon to see hundreds of these monkeys of all shapes and sizes roaming around the grounds of the campus during the summer months. I have heard a few stories of some of these creatures who have got inside some of the buildings through a window left carelessly open by someone, and the resulting havoc that ensues to evict them.

I believe they tried to get rid of some of these creatures off the campus some years back by trapping them and transporting them elsewhere. One of my friends who witnessed it, said they filled a truck with fruits and left the back open, and within no time "a horde of monkeys" descended on the truck to devour the fruits, at which point they closed the back while the monkeys were busy eating their catch, and transported them across the harbour to Navi Mumbai to dump them so that they couldn't make their way back. But I think they had to discontinue this as it proved ineffective due to the sheer numbers of these creatures and the rate at which they multiply even if some of their comrades are deported. IIRC, some animal welfare activists also complained or something about this practice.

Now, the inside joke that does the rounds whenever these creatures descend on the BARC campus during the summer months is that Homi Bhabha, who died in the plane crash, has got reincarnated as a monkey and is coming down to BARC regularly to check up on their progress

... sort of like the tale of Mahabali visiting Kerala during Onam time.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2007 20:03

vsudhir, Looks like being on BRF is paying off! Atleast the dogma here is getting through. Thanks for relieving me of the task.

sanku, No. 123 is a way of checking or constraining India's power potential. The goal has not changed from 1965.

The dilemma for India (and I dont mean only the elite but mango people) is to transform the zero sum game that the US is basically playing by seeking overall domination to an evolution of cooperation. The US can play the zero sum game because the factors of power are in its favor- industrial economic strength, food supply independence ( by and large it does not import esentials, only gourmet luxuries), overarchng military technological leadership, cultural domination via books, music and films and the will to dominate as the legacy bearers of Greek and Roman civilizations of Western Europe. The modern day poor Greeks and Italians are no longer the legacy bearers!

If India wants to compete in those areas it will get whipped. Macauleyization has ensured that Indian elite wants to compete in those areas as they are the current standards of power. Failing that they want to get under the umbrella. The old freedom struggle mission of finding an Indian way -India's tryst with destiny is on the wane.

However there is a way for these factors are temporary. Vidhata did not remove the British to let India go under. He must have a plan.

There are demographic changes underway in the US. Iraq fiasco has shown the limits of militray power and is sucking the economic strength and just as the period after Vietnam drew the US armed forces away from the core mission to fighting insurgencies, theAlQ crap is sucking away the energy towards creating a police state which will stifle the freedom which is the fundamental source of strength. Vietnam affected the military. AlQ is affecting the body politic.

India meantime has to develop food and economic independence and become the alternate idea capital of the world. Folks from all around the wolrd should come to India to seek an alternative world view just as it was in the period before 1st millenium when it was the center of religious and social thought. Bollywood and Indian writers have to be freed from the stifling carpets that prevent them from reaching full potential. Indian clothing style has to become the preferred way.

And sraj, could you post your article from K.P. Nayar again in the old post. The editing, whoever did it, has mascerated it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2007 20:05

Abhisekcc, Post your comments in Rediff where the article first came.

Thanks, ramana

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Sep 2007 20:27

The entire Congress party from Sonia on down is for sale -- Visa and Mastercard Accepted. Sibal is pretending that he had something to do with India's nuclear self-reliance when the rat b******* just sold our assets to the americans for a small middleman charge.

Now, Cong says Hyde Act not binding on India
21 Sep 2007, 1311 hrs IST,PTI

NEW DELHI: With the Left allies stepping up the campaign against the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Congress has come out with a booklet rejecting charges that the agreement would affect India's ability to conduct an independent foreign policy and strategic programme.

Putting forward its point of view in the key matter, the party has also denied that the 123 agreement would in any way affect India's right to conduct nuclear tests.

The 21-page booklet brought out to counter "inadequate information, cynical criticism and partisan politics" said any informed discussion must trace India's "long and difficult" journey to attain nuclear self-reliance. (As opposed to Manmohan Singh and Kapil Sibal's lying about how they assisted the US in capping India?)

"This agreement is not at the cost of the autonomy of our strategic nuclear programme, our three-stage programme and our research and development activities," it said. (But it is at the cost of the readiness of our nuclear arsenal, you lying pieces of ****.)

Referring to the Hyde Act, it said "it is only a US law. It is not binding on India. We have entered into a bilateral agreement with the US." (That's only now, all of these scumbags are pretending that the 123 cannot be overriden by Hyde or indeed any other legislation in the future and lying to the public blatantly.)

Besides it said the Hyde Act is an "enabling legislation" passed in the US Congress.

"As far as India is concerned we are committed to the terms and provisions of the 123 agreement only," it said. (doesn't matter what YOU commit do, dumbasses, once you sign onto multilateral treaties, you are beholden by the "international laws")

http://publication.samachar.com/pub_art ... ?id=281348

After Buddhadeb, Basu supports nuclear deal.

The commies are just faking the opposition and will "gradually come around" and not protest while Manmohan Singh sells out the country --- they are all in it together. Manmohan Singh is India's version of the Shah of Iran, where he signs the nation up to the NPT/CTBT and walks away, and the rest of us have to face the consequences of that action.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 21 Sep 2007 21:47

ramana wrote:

And sraj, could you post your article from K.P. Nayar again in the old post. The editing, whoever did it, has mascerated it.

Here it is, without any big fonts or color this time:
KP Nayar Telegraph article on draft US Proposal circulated to NSG

Washington, Sept. 20: The Bush administration has told the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which controls the global commerce in nuclear material and technology, that it is seeking an exemption for India to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Paragraph 1. a. of a US proposal circulated among NSG countries states that the groupâ€™s member governments would agree to change the rules for India because they â€œdesire to contribute to an effective non-proliferation regime, and to the widest possible implementation of the objectives of the treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weaponsâ€

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Sep 2007 21:53

Indian officials who are in Vienna are understood to have told the Americans that references to the NPT in any formal decision by the group will further complicate the UPA governmentâ€™s efforts to win acceptance for the deal in India.

These "Indian officials" are only worried about "winning acceptance of the deal"...they are not worried about the substance of what they may be signing on to! So there will not be references to the NPT (to help the traitorous politicians "sell the deal in India"), but there will be *more vague* language that can put India in more of bind down the line --- malice or incompetence?

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 21 Sep 2007 22:27

N-deal is for nuclear energy: Jyoti Basu

Days after West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee pitched for nuclear power, veteran Communist Party of India-Marxist leader Jyoti Basu on Friday echoed him by saying that the Indo-US nuclear deal was for atomic energy and hoped that the stand-off between the Left and the United Progressive Alliance government on the issue would ease.

"The Indo-US nuclear deal is for nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is necessary and there is a need for nuclear power plants. With new industries mushrooming, the demand for power will increase," Basu told reporters after the party's state secretariat meeting in Kolkata.

He also expressed hope that the conflict between Left parties and the UPA government over the Indo-US nuclear deal would ease after the CPI-M's politburo and central committee meetings in Kolkata.

"CPI-M's politburo and central committee will meet in Kolkata from September 28 to October 1, which will be followed by a joint meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear deal. There could be some easing off of the situation," he said.

He said problems have developed between the CPI-M and the UPA because the Common Minimum Programme was not being adhered to.

Asked whether he was for indigenous reactors or for foreign ones, Basu replied, "I'm not a technical person. I don't know which technology is appropriate."

He said during his tenure as chief minister, there was a proposal for setting up a nuclear power plant at Sagar in South 24 Parganas district.

"The Centre had told that nuclear power plants could not be set up at places where coal is available. We are against American imperialism, but we need foreign capital for industrialisation," Basu said.

"They (foreign investors) are not coming for charity, but for profit. We will also get benefit out of it. This would be on the basis of mutual interest," he said.

Responding to another query, Basu made it clear that there was no difference in the party in its fight against communalism and imperialism contrary to media speculations.

"Certainly the media doesn't determine our party policies. We are committed to fight both communalism and imperialism. There are various types of media reports being published," he said.

Basu's comment came amid media speculation that Communists in Bengal were not endorsing party general secretary Prakash Karat's strident postures against the UPA government over the nuclear deal.

ROFLMAO.

bala · Post by **bala** » 21 Sep 2007 22:47

Moscow for lifting NSG sanctions against New Delhi

[quote]NEW DELHI: Russia favours the lifting of curbs on India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), according to information made available here.

Following a meeting with Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar in Vienna, head of Russiaâ€™s Federal Agency for Nuclear Power Sergei Kiriyenko said: â€œOur nuclear cooperation with India is positive, and we urge a decision to lift the NSG sanctions against India.â€

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Sep 2007 22:52

http://publication.samachar.com/pub_art ... ?id=276360

Meanwhile, the scientific community here is looking with interest at a Russian initiative to set up a guaranteed reserve of low-enriched uranium in eastern Siberia under IAEA supervision. It would be supplied to countries that have been denied access to nuclear fuel.

Although Russiaâ€™s intention is to attract consumers to beat back potential competition from countries, such as South Africa and China, that are planning to enter the field of low-enriched uranium, scientists believe a membership of this initiative would help avoid disruption in the supply of nuclear fuel.

India is barred from participating in global commerce on nuclear technology till it signs a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. After that, the 45-country NSG will have to take a unanimous view on lifting the curbs. The only exception is the Koodankulam nuclear power plant, being built with the help of Russia. Both countries insist the agreement for the same was signed before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into force.

So MMS and Co. know fully well that we are signing up for the NPT/CTBT, else what is the need to state this explicitly?