Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 08 Apr 2008
I do not know about Sikka, RC and AK are still in high positions. How are they screwed ? It is the country that is screwed.Shakti series royally screwed RC (& AK, Sikka etc),
Yes, but it is surprising. After all in Sublette's nwfaq it is mentioned that Israel would be capable of reliable sloikas and reliable 2 stage TN's of suboptimal yield/weight ratio since they are unlikely to be able to build gas boosted fission weapons without testing. So, shouldnt we be able to build at least working TN's of suboptimal yield/weight ratio ? The best thing to do is to test and test until it works thoughUnlike what Chidambram said to cover his musharraf, the S1 was a full yield weapon, with tertiary stage fueled for full bang. So change your above statement to read "the remaining 25kt came from the secondary and tertiary". Now account for yield from spark plug and tertiary (yes fissile tertiary is potent maal) and that leaves embarrassingly pathetic yield of secondary fusion. You see the very bad picture?
Indeed looks like it. It is now an internecine Indian battle between nationalists who believe emphasis on security will in the long term pay dividends, while those who believe hell with nukes, lets get the dog bones Unkil throws at us; its better than anything we have. This latter viewpoint also serves the traitors among India's ruling elite who are averse to India's military power in the first place, fearing a Hindu resurgence. In this battle, I doubt the nationalists have any chance for the simple reason that other than good intentions and vision, they don't have much to show. 5 crackers don't maketh an arsenal.NRao wrote:I have this very strange feeling that a Fatwa has been issued.
Seems BARC has been kept out of the ambit of the OBC quotas.
BARC kept out of quota purview
Here's the expanded list:
BARC kept out of quota purview
Here's the expanded list:
Institutions not covered by the Act
All central government supported minority institutions
Central educational institutions established in Tribal areas
Homi Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam
Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, Indore
Institute for Plasma Research, Gandhinagar
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata
Institute of Physics, Bhubaneshwar
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai
Harish Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad
Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai
North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences, Shillong
National Brain Research Centre, Manesar, Gurgaon
Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research,Bangalore
Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad
Space Physics Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram
Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun
Courses/programmes at high-levels of specialisation
I am not sure I understand why the whole testing question is binary, as in we can test or we cannot. As long as India hedges its bets outside the NSG via direct interaction with allies who will work in mutually beneficial way -- and there are indications that such items are in the works -- signing up with the NSG, while actively working outside the NSG for the 3-stage program, then it looks like India will have its bases covered, will leave India in a position to bypass any repercussuions due to testing -- notwithstanding the signing up for the 123 and IAEA inspections.
It would seem like it is possible to have our cake and eat it, but only if GoI acts independently without Indian leaders dropping a load in their pants at the thought of displeasing the US or Indian business interests and fail from performing crucial actions that will save India from any termination of fuel, such as having both NSG and non NSG sources of fuel.
The real value to the GoI for signing up with the NSG is the fuel. However, people cannot seriously suggest right now that GoI source it from non NSG sources -- the problem with sourcing fuel from non-NSG sources is that it has a few years of lead time before India can get the fuel into Indian territory. India is starting to develop good relations with Africa and hopefully all the mutually beneficial projects will come to fruition eventually.
If India willfully and deliberately develops strong bilateral relations with non-NSG countries and ensure that they do not get conned by the NSG (which can be done by, at some point, when the partner is sufficiently sophisticated to own and operate Indian tech., but the intent can be spelled out a lot earlier...that (or some other) carrot will have to stop the non-NSG countries from being bribed into to join the NSG.
It would seem like it is possible to have our cake and eat it, but only if GoI acts independently without Indian leaders dropping a load in their pants at the thought of displeasing the US or Indian business interests and fail from performing crucial actions that will save India from any termination of fuel, such as having both NSG and non NSG sources of fuel.
The real value to the GoI for signing up with the NSG is the fuel. However, people cannot seriously suggest right now that GoI source it from non NSG sources -- the problem with sourcing fuel from non-NSG sources is that it has a few years of lead time before India can get the fuel into Indian territory. India is starting to develop good relations with Africa and hopefully all the mutually beneficial projects will come to fruition eventually.
If India willfully and deliberately develops strong bilateral relations with non-NSG countries and ensure that they do not get conned by the NSG (which can be done by, at some point, when the partner is sufficiently sophisticated to own and operate Indian tech., but the intent can be spelled out a lot earlier...that (or some other) carrot will have to stop the non-NSG countries from being bribed into to join the NSG.
Looks like MKN is idiot of the first order, (I am ready to be beaten to death on this count on BRF)
From his statement ( spoken throgh hus Musharaough) India is not litigatious, either he is confirming that we are slaves and not entitle to question any thing massa says or he thinks massa will always be gracious and take my interests to be his!
Even N. Korea with a fizziled bum has made negotiations with massa much more tough and prolonged than so called regional power India!
Shame on the baboos, as I said even during our worst financial crisis we never signed our strategic Independence under any GOI of any party except this useless constable...... Man Mohan Sonia not Singh.
From his statement ( spoken throgh hus Musharaough) India is not litigatious, either he is confirming that we are slaves and not entitle to question any thing massa says or he thinks massa will always be gracious and take my interests to be his!
Even N. Korea with a fizziled bum has made negotiations with massa much more tough and prolonged than so called regional power India!
Shame on the baboos, as I said even during our worst financial crisis we never signed our strategic Independence under any GOI of any party except this useless constable...... Man Mohan Sonia not Singh.
You cannot postpone the inevitable. Something will break out in the region because there are two countries who are revisionists.CRamS wrote:Indeed looks like it. It is now an internecine Indian battle between nationalists who believe emphasis on security will in the long term pay dividends, while those who believe hell with nukes, lets get the dog bones Unkil throws at us; its better than anything we have. This latter viewpoint also serves the traitors among India's ruling elite who are averse to India's military power in the first place, fearing a Hindu resurgence. In this battle, I doubt the nationalists have any chance for the simple reason that other than good intentions and vision, they don't have much to show. 5 crackers don't maketh an arsenal.NRao wrote:I have this very strange feeling that a Fatwa has been issued.
Just read this by Spinster
Shame on the baboos, as I said even during our worst financial crisis we never signed our strategic Independence under any GOI of any party except this useless constable...... Man Mohan Sonia not Singh.
Do you mean to say it is inevitable we shall be under the hegemony of the revisionists ? If this state of affairs continues, that is inevitable. In the past, you seemed optimistic that in the long run, the current stooge set up in Bharat will be unable to contain its contradictions and will give way to a new set up that solves most problems in a decade or so. Could you explain further ?You cannot postpone the inevitable. Something will break out in the region because there are two countries who are revisionists.
OK, External environment will change India's internal dynamics including economy and will force a change in policy making.ramdas wrote:Do you mean to say it is inevitable we shall be under the hegemony of the revisionists ? If this state of affairs continues, that is inevitable. In the past, you seemed optimistic that in the long run, the current stooge set up in Bharat will be unable to contain its contradictions and will give way to a new set up that solves most problems in a decade or so. Could you explain further ?You cannot postpone the inevitable. Something will break out in the region because there are two countries who are revisionists.
Uncle is trying to ensure that the status quo is not disturbed
Hopefully things will move towards a more nationalist direction. How can one be sure of that ? Also, I understand that in the 60's too, we tried pursuing this kind of "globalization" led by a cosmopolitan elite and payed a heavy price. This led to many of the "socialist" steps of the Indira Gandhi regime in order to preserve sovereignity. Is that correct ?OK, External environment will change India's internal dynamics including economy and will force a change in policy making.
It is TSP and PRC that are trying to regionally suppress the new India that is Bharat and yet its India that is called revisonist by Indian pseudo-seculars and Wetern Indologists. The West with US as the guiding light is also backing the duo for some sort of a Talleyrandian status quo. The new India is way forward and nto the other way around. The new India is totally different from the image created by Maxmueller and his boss Macaulay. This is the worrisome nature for the status quoers. Such an India can reclaim its old empire of the mind in South East Asia, Central Asia, Middile East and East Africa abutting the Arabian Sea. Decolonisation is and was an Indian idea. The former Western colonies: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and USA are still connected to the Old British Empire through the Commonwealth and the Special Relationship.
In other words they are not free in their minds.
In other words they are not free in their minds.
Reading history and correct interpretation will answer these questions.ramdas wrote:Hopefully things will move towards a more nationalist direction. How can one be sure of that ? Also, I understand that in the 60's too, we tried pursuing this kind of "globalization" led by a cosmopolitan elite and payed a heavy price. This led to many of the "socialist" steps of the Indira Gandhi regime in order to preserve sovereignity. Is that correct ?OK, External environment will change India's internal dynamics including economy and will force a change in policy making.
The 60 generation was also a colonized generation. The socialism was a trap put on India killing India for an entire generation - intellectually and economically.
Only in the last 20 years we are seeing the decolonized generation rising and moving towards becoming the elite of India.
But the old generation still hangs around and carry the sociology flag and the EJs have taken the role of the colonized generation.
Last edited by svinayak on 10 Apr 2008 21:10, edited 1 time in total.
Arunji:
Going by what you have written about S1, it looks like the spark plug, which has a very low mass of fissile material, did produce a good explosive yield. This means that radiation implosion happened properly (maybe even reasonably symmetrically) the assembly however seems to have disintegrated before it yielded anything substantial. In other words, containment was insufficient. Could this be among other things, due to insufficient tamper /radiation case thickness ?
Going by what you have written about S1, it looks like the spark plug, which has a very low mass of fissile material, did produce a good explosive yield. This means that radiation implosion happened properly (maybe even reasonably symmetrically) the assembly however seems to have disintegrated before it yielded anything substantial. In other words, containment was insufficient. Could this be among other things, due to insufficient tamper /radiation case thickness ?
Last edited by ramdas on 10 Apr 2008 21:11, edited 1 time in total.
ramdas are you crazy to discuss US design issues in a public forum in the US. Do you want to get hauled up? Argumentativeness is good but not beyond a point. Take a breather and edit your views. Listen even if its published stuff you should not be the one to point it out. Makes you a patsy or bakra for zealous lawyers.
Not entirely true, they came to loot india not just for natural resources, but also of human, intellectual, cultural, strategic, geographical, historical resources. In short, a complete loot of *everything*.NRao wrote:The Europeans came to loot India of its natural resources, the US will do the same and leach on the middle-class - both as a buying entity and brain power for the benefit of the US.
Just saying natural resources implies that is all it had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ma ... 3%A9rigord
Today, when speaking of the art of diplomacy, the phrase "he is a Talleyrand" is used to denote a statesman of great resource and skill.
Today, when speaking of the art of diplomacy, the phrase "he is a Talleyrand" is used to denote a statesman of great resource and skill.
(1) China was never a Western colony. Since they were not enslaved, it leads to respect. India was a slave. (200 years to the British, 800 years to the Muslims)G Subramaniam wrote:I have often wondered why we dont get respect like china Economically and militarily we are about only about 10 years behind china And as late as 1980, china had a worse economy
(2) China has demonstrated the *WILL* to use its army. India has a large army, but not the will to use it. It is not percieved to be a nation willing to sacrifice a lot of blood for any cause, including defending territory.
(3) UN Security seat. Any UNSC resolution needs China's approval (because of veto power).
(4) Chinese is not a soft state. Its actions (even if condemnable) are not random, ad-hoc, or soft. India is viewed as a soft state. Its policies are inconsistent and sometimes incoherent. (We went from war in Kargil to almost war in 2002 to peace process and visa free regimes. Absence of focus.)
(5) India has lost territory in the last little while, China has gained territory. India is a shrinking nation, China is a expanding nation.
(6) China is 3 times larger than India.
(7) China is a recognized nuclear state, India is not.
( 8 ) Any nation that seeks to contain India has a very easy way of doing to. How? the answer is Pakistan. This ensures that India is enver able to stand up in any international problem. Failure to take care of Pakistan has cost India tremendously. (I know this is the Paki line, but it is true.) China's pressure point is Taiwan, but it has dealth it with intense focus, not useless piss processes.
Last edited by surinder on 10 Apr 2008 21:47, edited 1 time in total.
China has expanded physically. But only India has the capability and cultural background to expand exponentially.
this is the potential of India as also it's danger to those who want to maintain status-quo. India has enormous reserve of soft-power which can always provide the basis for hard power.
Thus any violence in India and any discrepancy is always played up abroad because this has tremendous ramifications beyond India's borders.
this is the potential of India as also it's danger to those who want to maintain status-quo. India has enormous reserve of soft-power which can always provide the basis for hard power.
Thus any violence in India and any discrepancy is always played up abroad because this has tremendous ramifications beyond India's borders.
Re: Nuke deal will help India become a superpower: Assocham
The unstated 'gift' along with this deal is the EJ 'gift'.
Nuke deal will help India become a superpower: Assocham
Wednesday, 09 April , 2008, 10:13
New Delhi: Leading industrialist and Assocham President Venugopal N Dhoot said the country should accord the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement to achieve nine-ten per cent growth rate in the next 10 years.
''The country should ink the 123 agreement with the US. We need to have good relations with the US to achieve the 9-10 per cent growth rate in the next decade,'' he said at the release of Assocham publication--Liberating India from Technology Denial Regime-Indo US Nuclear Agreement on Tuesday.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14640893
It is the other way round, the 'Pakistan problem' is an extension of the western problem. It's an extension of the problem left behind and maintained by western imperialists and its current torch-bearers.surinder wrote:( 8 ) Any nation that seeks to contain India has a very easy way of doing to. How? the answer is Pakistan. This ensures that India is enver able to stand up in any international problem. Failure to take care of Pakistan has cost India tremendously. (I know this is the Paki line, but it is true.) China's pressure point is Taiwan, but it has dealth it with intense focus, not useless piss processes.
Once that problem is taken care of the 'Pakistan problem' will cease to matter.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 405
- Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
No question about it. You are just restating what I wrote earlier. By not solving the problem, we have let the Westerners (and Chinis and any one else for that matter who has the money to pay to the whores in Whoristan) keep a pressure point on us. If we smash it to pieces, wouldnt' we gain the most?Raju wrote:It is the other way round, the 'Pakistan problem' is an extension of the western problem. It's an extension of the problem left behind and maintained by western imperialists and its current torch-bearers.surinder wrote:( 8 ) Any nation that seeks to contain India has a very easy way of doing to. How? the answer is Pakistan. This ensures that India is enver able to stand up in any international problem. Failure to take care of Pakistan has cost India tremendously. (I know this is the Paki line, but it is true.) China's pressure point is Taiwan, but it has dealth it with intense focus, not useless piss processes.
Once that problem is taken care of the 'Pakistan problem' will cease to matter.
Last edited by surinder on 10 Apr 2008 21:58, edited 2 times in total.
Manmohan Singh receives FAO highest award
Not directly linked to the nuke discussion but isn't it strange that manmohan receives an award in an field in which he done worse(present food crisis) than his predessor and inspite of that gets rewarded with an FAO award. This award is being presented to him for other reasons and dont forget to check the previous awardees who like manmohan have no notable achievements in the field of agriculture. This is manmohan's award for pushing the nuke deal.
Manmohan Singh receives FAO highest award
Apr 10, 2008
New Delhi : Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh on Thursday received the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) highest distinction, the Agricola Medal for his contribution to agricultural and social development in the country.
Dr. Singh is the first Indian Prime Minister to receive the honour. The medal was instituted in 1976.
Previous recipients of the Agricola Medal include King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, French President Jacques Chirac, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Pope John Paul II, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and German President Johannes Rau.
Boss there are quite a few issues in this train of thought.Rye wrote:I am not sure I understand why the whole testing question is binary, as in we can test or we cannot. As long as India hedges its bets outside the NSG via direct interaction with allies who will work in mutually beneficial way -- and there are indications that such items are in the works -- signing up with the NSG, while actively working outside the NSG for the 3-stage program, then it looks like India will have its bases covered, will leave India in a position to bypass any repercussuions due to testing -- notwithstanding the signing up for the 123 and IAEA inspections.
It would seem like it is possible to have our cake and eat it, but only if GoI acts independently without Indian leaders dropping a load in their pants at the thought of displeasing the US or Indian business interests and fail from performing crucial actions that will save India from any termination of fuel, such as having both NSG and non NSG sources of fuel.
The real value to the GoI for signing up with the NSG is the fuel. However, people cannot seriously suggest right now that GoI source it from non NSG sources -- the problem with sourcing fuel from non-NSG sources is that it has a few years of lead time before India can get the fuel into Indian territory. India is starting to develop good relations with Africa and hopefully all the mutually beneficial projects will come to fruition eventually.
If India willfully and deliberately develops strong bilateral relations with non-NSG countries and ensure that they do not get conned by the NSG (which can be done by, at some point, when the partner is sufficiently sophisticated to own and operate Indian tech., but the intent can be spelled out a lot earlier...that (or some other) carrot will have to stop the non-NSG countries from being bribed into to join the NSG.
1. 123 agreement/NSG deal - No testing and if so, then excessive painThe entire testing question "is binary
2. NO 123 agreement/NSG deal - testing possible.
1. India cannot sign up with the NSG and then court non-NSG sources. The NSG clauses will in all likelihood explicitly put down clauses that forecloses this option. If the clause is not explicitly put down, then plans that impose severe punitive actions against India will be laid in place by the NSG crowd.As long as India hedges its bets outside the NSG via direct interaction with allies who will work in mutually beneficial way -- and there are indications that such items are in the works -- signing up with the NSG, while actively working outside the NSG........................
2. Who are these "allies" who will work with India "outside" the NSG, after India has signed the Hyde dictated 123 agreement and the NSG deal? Care to name few prospective "allies"?
One hears that India is "courting" Namibia. Namibia will tell India to go and get stuffed, if India tries to play games outside the purview of the NSG, after signing a deal with the NSG. Namibia is after all a stooge of South Africa, and will do the US's bidding at the drop of a hat. The other prospective "allies" are two-bit tin pot dictatorships, whose leaders will give in to US pressure even at the hint of a suggestion! If there is one willing to sell his musharraf only for 10 rupees, that option will be easily removed from the table with a higher bid of 100 Rs by grand bankroller. "Sam Daam Danda Bhed" is Indian mantra that is well practiced not by India but by Anglo Saxons.
India never invested in long term penetration of these countries (that takes decade(s)), {it is another matter that OTOH India is penetrated by all countries that matter, be it China, Russia, UK, USA, Canada, Japan .. . .)
"123 agreement supersedes Hyde" argument, is a discredit logic.
If India signs up with the NSG (and this will not pass without US help) and then courts non-NSG "allies", the only "cake" India will eat is one made of night soil. This will be the generic menu on the cards if India does sign the 123 agreement and concludes the deal with the NSG. The quantity and stench of the cake "filling" will increase if India tries some parallel non-NSG options, after signing up with the NSG. Can't recommend that menu to 1 billion people.It would seem like it is possible to have our cake and eat it.
The only way the GOI can show resolve is "NOT TO SIGN THE 123 AGREEMENT AND TO STOP NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NSG ASAP".GoI acts independently without Indian leaders dropping a load in their pants at the thought of displeasing the US or Indian business interests ... .. .. .
Anything else would be tantamount to "Indian leaders dropping a load in their pants".
1. The prospective "allies" are are either two-bit tin pot dictatorships, or former colonies of nations comprising the NSG carte. These "allies" have amply demonstrated, in some cases for centuries, that they are eminently "connable" by the crowd comprising the NSG.If India willfully and deliberately develops strong bilateral relations with non-NSG countries and ensure that they do not get conned by the NSG (which can be done by, at some point, when the partner is sufficiently sophisticated to own and operate Indian tech., but the intent can be spelled out a lot earlier...that (or some other) carrot will have to stop the non-NSG countries from being bribed into to join the NSG.
2. What technology can India hope to offer these hypothetical "non-NSG "allies", that cannot be offered to them by the NSG crowd? If not to join the NSG then at least to shun/double cross India?
Pls enlighten.
Generally accepted facts/POVs at BRF -
- More testing is needed for India to achieve minimum credible deterrence
- Testing now or in near future will have political and economic cost with or without the deal
- It’s highly unlikely that India would conduct any more tests in foreseeable future unless provoked/threatened
- Economic cost of testing after deal would be higher than without it
- Nuclear deal will have real economic and technical benefits for India and USA/Fr/Ru/Br
- There is a huge shortage of nuclear fuel aka Uranium which is unsolvable with import at least in short to medium term
- Energy security of India would improve with the signing of the deal
- US is not trustworthy party and its domestic politics could over ride international treaties
- 123 doesn’t give India status equal to a P5 nation
A person can conclude the deal either way based on above statements or generally accepted views @ BRF.
Looking at these POVs the issue is still as murky as it was 20 threads back. BRF is a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals but it is still so hard to get anywhere close to a simple majority leave aside a consensus.
Gives you a perspective as to how hard it is for GoI to achieve a consensus on any single issue.
I have still not understood what is the relation between testing and this deal? Either way the issues and consequences would be same. The benefits of the deal would more than pay for the escalated cost of testing.
- More testing is needed for India to achieve minimum credible deterrence
- Testing now or in near future will have political and economic cost with or without the deal
- It’s highly unlikely that India would conduct any more tests in foreseeable future unless provoked/threatened
- Economic cost of testing after deal would be higher than without it
- Nuclear deal will have real economic and technical benefits for India and USA/Fr/Ru/Br
- There is a huge shortage of nuclear fuel aka Uranium which is unsolvable with import at least in short to medium term
- Energy security of India would improve with the signing of the deal
- US is not trustworthy party and its domestic politics could over ride international treaties
- 123 doesn’t give India status equal to a P5 nation
A person can conclude the deal either way based on above statements or generally accepted views @ BRF.
Looking at these POVs the issue is still as murky as it was 20 threads back. BRF is a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals but it is still so hard to get anywhere close to a simple majority leave aside a consensus.
Gives you a perspective as to how hard it is for GoI to achieve a consensus on any single issue.
I have still not understood what is the relation between testing and this deal? Either way the issues and consequences would be same. The benefits of the deal would more than pay for the escalated cost of testing.
No! go back and read Arun s reply few posts above.I have still not understood what is the relation between testing and this deal? Either way the issues and consequences would be same. The benefits of the deal would more than pay for the escalated cost of testing.
Nuclear deal will have real economic and technical benefits for India and USA/Fr/Ru/Br
Not necessarily true, on the contrary USA/Fr?RU beneift out of this because we will be buying their reactors/technology (at least partially even if some equipment is made in India) all these come at a cost again refer Arun_s posts above.
BRF is NOT a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals and here it is not a democracy for concensus making.Katare wrote:
A person can conclude the deal either way based on above statements or generally accepted views @ BRF.
Looking at these POVs the issue is still as murky as it was 20 threads back. BRF is a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals but it is still so hard to get anywhere close to a simple majority leave aside a consensus.
Courstsey Ramnarayan
Sabotaging India’s rise
10 Apr 2008, 0001 hrs IST,AMIT MITRA
The CPM and its Left cohorts have been vigorously arguing against the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal on the grounds of the Hyde Act.
But now the mask is off; the Hyde Act is only a red herring. The real reason, from the very beginning, was to prevent India from going into a strategic alliance with the US. Such an alliance could disturb China’s emerging unipolar hegemony over Asia.
The Singh-Bush accord could, in fact, help in creating a multipolar Asia with Japan and India playing significant roles, along with China, in the 21st century. This so-called imperialist design of a multi-polar Asia, dotted by so many ’petty-bourgeois demo-cracies’ and ’neo-liberal’ economies, is just not acceptable to Comrade Prakash Karat.
But we must give him his due. He had stated his position explicitly on July 8, 2005, 10 days before the signing of the Singh-Bush accord in Washington. However, what he did not reveal is his stra-tegy and tactics (to use Leninist idioms) if his missive was not adhered to by the UPA.
A week before Singh’s departure for the US in July 2005, Karat crafted his critique of the ’New Framework For The India-US Defence Relationship’. He put it ominously: "The government should be warned not to give further concessions to the United States".
He went on to say that "Indo-US (military) agreement comes at a time when the US is actively working to contain China. The US does not see China as a strategic partner but as a strategic rival. In contrast, the US approach manifested in this agreement (with India) is to prop up India as a counterweight". After all, the CPM is a ’fraternal party’ of the Chinese Communist Party and when the comrades travel to Beijing for their fraternal party confabulations, even the Indian embassy is kept in the dark.
The politburo members of CPM, including some members of Parliament, are whisked away from the airport in Beijing to an unknown destination with no information of their arrival, departure or schedule to the Indian embassy!
Given Karat’s deep concern for China’s strategic interest today, let us recall that CPM supported China when it attacked India in 1962 and it rejoiced when China exploded its first nuclear device.
Ironically, the CPM did not support the government, let alone rejoice, when India imploded its nuclear device in 1998.
To return to Karat’s significant address before Singh’s departure for Washington in July 2005, he made it clear that "the framework of the Indo-US defence relations should be rejected.
Let it remain just a framework skeleton. It should not be fleshed out". Recently Karat said in a similar vein to Times of India that UPA and the Left have agreed "that the government will go for talks (with IAEA) but not initial the text or take it to the board of governors for approval". In other words, the nuclear deal too must remain a framework skeleton — no fleshing it out, Dr Singh.
His strategy of sabotaging the deal was more than apparent and his tactics was to delay the process to its death.
Behind the veil of CPM slogans of neocolonialism lies the lurking dangers of a continuing nexus between China and Pakistan. China’s opposition to the Singh-Bush pact of July 18, 2005 came instantaneously.
China said that the nuclear cooperation between India and the US "must conform with provisions of the international non-proliferation regime". Pakistan, on the other hand, invoked a different strategy.
Tasnim Aslam, foreign ministry spokesperson, said "Pakistan believes that we also have a claim, an expectation for international cooperation under safeguards for nuclear power generation". Having failed in Washington, Pakistan quickly began exploring the possibility of a large nuclear power deal with China.
In this context, it is surprising that Karat is on the same side as China and Pakistan, the only two nations in the world who oppose the nuclear deal.
Whether it is a conspiracy against India or an attachment to an outdated Leninist ideology, sabotaging 123 is tantamount to sabotaging India’s emergence as a major power in the global matrix.
(The writer is secretary-general, FICCI.)
Sabotaging India’s rise
10 Apr 2008, 0001 hrs IST,AMIT MITRA
The CPM and its Left cohorts have been vigorously arguing against the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal on the grounds of the Hyde Act.
But now the mask is off; the Hyde Act is only a red herring. The real reason, from the very beginning, was to prevent India from going into a strategic alliance with the US. Such an alliance could disturb China’s emerging unipolar hegemony over Asia.
The Singh-Bush accord could, in fact, help in creating a multipolar Asia with Japan and India playing significant roles, along with China, in the 21st century. This so-called imperialist design of a multi-polar Asia, dotted by so many ’petty-bourgeois demo-cracies’ and ’neo-liberal’ economies, is just not acceptable to Comrade Prakash Karat.
But we must give him his due. He had stated his position explicitly on July 8, 2005, 10 days before the signing of the Singh-Bush accord in Washington. However, what he did not reveal is his stra-tegy and tactics (to use Leninist idioms) if his missive was not adhered to by the UPA.
A week before Singh’s departure for the US in July 2005, Karat crafted his critique of the ’New Framework For The India-US Defence Relationship’. He put it ominously: "The government should be warned not to give further concessions to the United States".
He went on to say that "Indo-US (military) agreement comes at a time when the US is actively working to contain China. The US does not see China as a strategic partner but as a strategic rival. In contrast, the US approach manifested in this agreement (with India) is to prop up India as a counterweight". After all, the CPM is a ’fraternal party’ of the Chinese Communist Party and when the comrades travel to Beijing for their fraternal party confabulations, even the Indian embassy is kept in the dark.
The politburo members of CPM, including some members of Parliament, are whisked away from the airport in Beijing to an unknown destination with no information of their arrival, departure or schedule to the Indian embassy!
Given Karat’s deep concern for China’s strategic interest today, let us recall that CPM supported China when it attacked India in 1962 and it rejoiced when China exploded its first nuclear device.
Ironically, the CPM did not support the government, let alone rejoice, when India imploded its nuclear device in 1998.
To return to Karat’s significant address before Singh’s departure for Washington in July 2005, he made it clear that "the framework of the Indo-US defence relations should be rejected.
Let it remain just a framework skeleton. It should not be fleshed out". Recently Karat said in a similar vein to Times of India that UPA and the Left have agreed "that the government will go for talks (with IAEA) but not initial the text or take it to the board of governors for approval". In other words, the nuclear deal too must remain a framework skeleton — no fleshing it out, Dr Singh.
His strategy of sabotaging the deal was more than apparent and his tactics was to delay the process to its death.
Behind the veil of CPM slogans of neocolonialism lies the lurking dangers of a continuing nexus between China and Pakistan. China’s opposition to the Singh-Bush pact of July 18, 2005 came instantaneously.
China said that the nuclear cooperation between India and the US "must conform with provisions of the international non-proliferation regime". Pakistan, on the other hand, invoked a different strategy.
Tasnim Aslam, foreign ministry spokesperson, said "Pakistan believes that we also have a claim, an expectation for international cooperation under safeguards for nuclear power generation". Having failed in Washington, Pakistan quickly began exploring the possibility of a large nuclear power deal with China.
In this context, it is surprising that Karat is on the same side as China and Pakistan, the only two nations in the world who oppose the nuclear deal.
Whether it is a conspiracy against India or an attachment to an outdated Leninist ideology, sabotaging 123 is tantamount to sabotaging India’s emergence as a major power in the global matrix.
(The writer is secretary-general, FICCI.)
well not really.. there are many who know more of the deal and what it is.. the issue is all about our future laid bare and which of those texts in the deal can be concocted and interpreted, in a manner to chew us where it hurts the most.
wish the deal happened in math or sanskrit texts. for example the hyde alone is enough., and the cleverly drafted they say so, but the 123 is a follow up of j18 at 50K feet, did never flow down much, but described at 30k feet.
many reciprocatives did not happen. the a-khans are now in advantage position, and we have become vulnerable having drafted by great guys., and struggling to finnese, since the khans have a higher trump in hand.
wish the deal happened in math or sanskrit texts. for example the hyde alone is enough., and the cleverly drafted they say so, but the 123 is a follow up of j18 at 50K feet, did never flow down much, but described at 30k feet.
many reciprocatives did not happen. the a-khans are now in advantage position, and we have become vulnerable having drafted by great guys., and struggling to finnese, since the khans have a higher trump in hand.
By signing the deal, India tacitly binds itself to the Hyde act. Testing after signing the 123 deal would almost be tantamount to a NPT signatory testing without leaving the NPT. Whatever consequences/actions the US takes/initiates would have a legal basis. Further, the US isn't going to pass India through the NSG and then let India go shopping elsewhere. In any case, assuming that India does diversify its suppliers, then by testing, India would have broken its commitments to the NSG!Katare wrote:Generally accepted facts/POVs at BRF -
- More testing is needed for India to achieve minimum credible deterrence
- Testing now or in near future will have political and economic cost with or without the deal
- It’s highly unlikely that India would conduct any more tests in foreseeable future unless provoked/threatened
- Economic cost of testing after deal would be higher than without it
- Nuclear deal will have real economic and technical benefits for India and USA/Fr/Ru/Br
- There is a huge shortage of nuclear fuel aka Uranium which is unsolvable with import at least in short to medium term
- Energy security of India would improve with the signing of the deal
- US is not trustworthy party and its domestic politics could over ride international treaties
- 123 doesn’t give India status equal to a P5 nation
A person can conclude the deal either way based on above statements or generally accepted views @ BRF.
Looking at these POVs the issue is still as murky as it was 20 threads back. BRF is a highly uniform and homogeneous group of individuals but it is still so hard to get anywhere close to a simple majority leave aside a consensus.
Gives you a perspective as to how hard it is for GoI to achieve a consensus on any single issue.
I have still not understood what is the relation between testing and this deal? Either way the issues and consequences would be same. The benefits of the deal would more than pay for the escalated cost of testing.
This will result in forsaking most if not all the nuclear hardware, and other big ticket items, that will be pushed down India's throat after signing the deal. India will be saddled with tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of junk, it can never use without showing "regret" by signing off on some nauseatingly humiliating terms akin to the Treaty of Versailles !
Bear in mind that the recent drastic budgetary cuts in the indigenous nuclear industry are purposed to make way for massive imports of near-obsolete foreign nuclear technologies.
Signing off on the 123/NSG arrangement will also involve other seriously debilitating and far-reaching consequences. One must keep in mind N.Burns' statement "Everything goes through Washington"!!! The FMCT and CTBT will almost certainly closely follow, and after that, a moratorium on Indian missile development and testing. That is the eventual goal of the concerned powers-that-be.
By testing without the 123/NSG deal, India goes to a position quite a bit stronger than it was in 1998, without breaking commitments made to any single Nation or cartel!
In addition, India would have demonstrated its seriousness about possessing a credible nuclear deterrent, instead of relying on the naked lies told by a bunch of charlatans (RC, etc...), which in any case are not taken seriously by the powers-that-be. From a historical perspective, it would demonstrate that Indians are capable of a formulating and sustaining a self-defense policy over a substantial period of time, breaking an unsavory tradition that has festered over a millennium. Specifically, the 1998 tests were not an isolated process or a knee-jerk reaction, but part of a deliberate and prolonged strategy, which can withstand historical aberrations and roadblocks like the MMS/UPA regime.
Gives you a perspective as to how hard it is for GoI to achieve a consensus on any single issue.
The answer could never be further from the truth. With regards to the UPA regime, its primarily what SG dictates.
This is based on how much spin-offs will be there to further her "personal beliefs", and the amount of deposits made into the accounts of the Manio-Gandhi syndicate. A secondary consideration is the deposits that are made in the accounts of select politicians, administrators, journalists, NGO's, etc....