04-11-2006, 03:58 AM
xposting from BR..
I am glad Ramana posted this. Some folks seem to be too lost in neutron counting..
And Saran better clarify using better language then he used last time when he replied to ABV's concern.
<!--QuoteBegin-"ramana"+-->QUOTE("ramana")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Welcome back Fareed bhai. We thought we lost you to the other side. Need you to be the balancer your dad was.
You have greater role in the future than the marginal one here.
The US Admins were never ready to deal with the NDA period. All those rounds of talks were an indicator for that. The endless rounds of chai biskoot were a run up to this. The NDA did ot commit troops in Iraq for that would have brought the GOAT into India. The Islamic fundoos that India has are IRoP inspired and not driven by ummah zeal. I do not see any chance of Indian troops in any Uncles adventures unless its in non Islamic areas for that will lead to fratricidal wars in India.
I think as people are thinking about the deal the testing aspect is now better understood. Acharya is right the FBR was a non issue that was blown up and the crumb thrown in as a tactic to show 'hard negotiations' by India. Its like the buyer insisting on your throwing in the bedroom furniture as condition to buying the house and later settling for a price markdown. The bedroom furniture was never part of the deal at all. Same with FBR. It was never part of any civilian agreement.
The capping of the tests is a great acheivement of the US. To understand this please go over the record. On May 13, 1998 after the five tests India announced a voluntary moratarium which was the same position that was taken by all the P-5. Recall the CTBT was dead as a door knob. The only commitment that the P-5 had vis a vis testing was voluntary. All of them except UK, France (they dont have tests sites and have agreements with US to share test data) maintain their test sites in readiness.
After numerous rounds of talks President Clinton, visited India in March 2000, and there was joint statement by ABV and Clinton that the voluntary test moratarium by both parties would be in place. In the July 18 agreement again the voluntary moratarium was reaaffirmed.
Now in the legislation this 'nuclear detonation' moratarium is being formally linked to fuel supply for civilian reactors. It is besides the point that in the past the US has cut off fuel after POKI. At that time India was a non-nuclear power. Now it is a nuclear power. The earlier cutoff was a proliferation measure to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. Now its an arms control measure to halt the technological progress of Indian arms. This very important and amounts to coercion by backdoor- sort of holding a loaded gun to ensure good behavior. This cannot be the basis of a strategic alliance.
Yes ABV has not articlulated the position very well. But that does not negate the position. Yes he spoke to the press. The reaon why is the Lok Sabha is in recess till May 10th. How can he express his views in Lok Sabha when it is in recess except through the press? I think Saran being a babu is seeing the strict interpretation of the letter of the agreements and the US laws. There is more than the letter of the agreement and the laws. It is the consequences of these actions on India.
I wont be nasty and just throw up the issue without proposing a solution. Since India does not want to immediately test and only retain the option, I think the Indian side should say that they will retain the option to reevaluate the moratarium if there is another breakout. For example, if the break out is by a non-NWS state it should be evaluated whether it has impact on the security posture of India. In other words if NoKo tests it has little impact unless its a IRoPian weapon test. If its Iran then it has to be evaluated as to the sophisitication.
If a P-5 state breaks out then again the impact to India has to be addressed. It cannot be held hostage to any fuel agreement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am glad Ramana posted this. Some folks seem to be too lost in neutron counting..
And Saran better clarify using better language then he used last time when he replied to ABV's concern.
<!--QuoteBegin-"ramana"+-->QUOTE("ramana")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Welcome back Fareed bhai. We thought we lost you to the other side. Need you to be the balancer your dad was.
You have greater role in the future than the marginal one here.
The US Admins were never ready to deal with the NDA period. All those rounds of talks were an indicator for that. The endless rounds of chai biskoot were a run up to this. The NDA did ot commit troops in Iraq for that would have brought the GOAT into India. The Islamic fundoos that India has are IRoP inspired and not driven by ummah zeal. I do not see any chance of Indian troops in any Uncles adventures unless its in non Islamic areas for that will lead to fratricidal wars in India.
I think as people are thinking about the deal the testing aspect is now better understood. Acharya is right the FBR was a non issue that was blown up and the crumb thrown in as a tactic to show 'hard negotiations' by India. Its like the buyer insisting on your throwing in the bedroom furniture as condition to buying the house and later settling for a price markdown. The bedroom furniture was never part of the deal at all. Same with FBR. It was never part of any civilian agreement.
The capping of the tests is a great acheivement of the US. To understand this please go over the record. On May 13, 1998 after the five tests India announced a voluntary moratarium which was the same position that was taken by all the P-5. Recall the CTBT was dead as a door knob. The only commitment that the P-5 had vis a vis testing was voluntary. All of them except UK, France (they dont have tests sites and have agreements with US to share test data) maintain their test sites in readiness.
After numerous rounds of talks President Clinton, visited India in March 2000, and there was joint statement by ABV and Clinton that the voluntary test moratarium by both parties would be in place. In the July 18 agreement again the voluntary moratarium was reaaffirmed.
Now in the legislation this 'nuclear detonation' moratarium is being formally linked to fuel supply for civilian reactors. It is besides the point that in the past the US has cut off fuel after POKI. At that time India was a non-nuclear power. Now it is a nuclear power. The earlier cutoff was a proliferation measure to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. Now its an arms control measure to halt the technological progress of Indian arms. This very important and amounts to coercion by backdoor- sort of holding a loaded gun to ensure good behavior. This cannot be the basis of a strategic alliance.
Yes ABV has not articlulated the position very well. But that does not negate the position. Yes he spoke to the press. The reaon why is the Lok Sabha is in recess till May 10th. How can he express his views in Lok Sabha when it is in recess except through the press? I think Saran being a babu is seeing the strict interpretation of the letter of the agreements and the US laws. There is more than the letter of the agreement and the laws. It is the consequences of these actions on India.
I wont be nasty and just throw up the issue without proposing a solution. Since India does not want to immediately test and only retain the option, I think the Indian side should say that they will retain the option to reevaluate the moratarium if there is another breakout. For example, if the break out is by a non-NWS state it should be evaluated whether it has impact on the security posture of India. In other words if NoKo tests it has little impact unless its a IRoPian weapon test. If its Iran then it has to be evaluated as to the sophisitication.
If a P-5 state breaks out then again the impact to India has to be addressed. It cannot be held hostage to any fuel agreement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->