• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nuclear Thread - 2
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is there it enjoy? BC has put all his fears in one article and is spouting bile. He is missing the forest while he is stomping on the bushes.
Whenever a news article comes one shuld read it. See what it confirms and what new info it brings. Then look for point of view of the writer.
This article is from Commie mouthpiece, so now you know where they stand. They are getting ready for showdown. Soon you will see more article on same line from U-Know-Who in US media. We should know what otherside is thinking and their road map to sabotage India's interest.

Regarding B Chellany and B Karnad, not sure do they really know inside out of whole deal, but it may just scare tactics to get more info from government.
I am glad the nuclear deal is failing. India needs to forced into a situation where they research their own nuclear technology, and build atleast 1000-2000 nuclear weapons.

The added benefit is that with India delibrately being kept out of the world order (ex. U.N. Security Council), in 20-30 years the current world order will collapse, as India with a massive economy and military power simpy bypasses the Security Council and the Nuclear Suppliers.
With India out of the system, future Indian governements will simply create a "parallel " world order.

Besides some of the supplier countries like Australia seem to have a real bad attitude and make some real rude comments. I don't see how India has any more energy security by importing Uranium from these countries.

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Mar 29 2006, 11:09 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Mar 29 2006, 11:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is there it enjoy? BC has put all his fears in one article and is spouting bile. He is missing the forest while he is stomping on the bushes.
Whenever a news article comes one shuld read it. See what it confirms and what new info it brings. Then look for point of view of the writer.

B Chellany and B Karnad think that no Govt of India can do the right thing. They wrote against the NDA and now against the UPA. One wonders what they will agree on?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->build atleast 1000-2000 nuclear weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does it make sense to have 1000-2000 weapons? From where we will get material to build so many weapon? Do we have Uranium?
Minimum deterrence is good enough for now.

To have top class economy, India needs to do more. First step should be world class infrastructure. India oil consumption can retard growth, to reduce dependency on Oil, India need to explore other resources which includes natural and nuclear. Future oil demand will make big elephant (India) which just started marching will get stuck in ditch.

We need civil nuclear deal to speed up process in civil nuclear sector. We can't or should not wait for slow indigenous system to kick in.
Importing Uranium does not improve energy security any more than importing oil. The NPT requires that India give up all Nuclear Weapons. Even if the deal is approved w/o India required to sign the NPT 60% of the current reactors will transferred to civilian use, so even less matrial for nuclear materials than currently.

I think it was the Fed. of American Scientists who said India is about 10-15 years away from a commercially viable Thorium reactor. THe Indian government needs to increase funding to cut that timeline in half. India has got like 40% of the world's thorium reserves, even if the nuclear deal is approved, it would be stupid to not speed up thorium reactor research.

If the Chinese were in the same position as India, they would have found some small time African country and bribed them to acquire the Uranium.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India would be precluded forever from conducting any nuclear-explosive test. If India were to violate that blanket prohibition, all civilian nuclear cooperation with it will cease, leaving high and dry any power reactors it imports, bereft of fuel.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a genuine concern. If this was the price that was paid for the deal then it must be spelled out.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The NPT requires that India give up all Nuclear Weapons. Even if the deal is approved w/o India required to sign the NPT 60% of the current reactors will transferred to civilian use, so even less matrial for nuclear materials than currently.
They are not asking India to sign NPT.

How much material is required for future nukes to maintain minimum deterance?
Even 40% is too much. For Pakistan or any neighbouring country with Nukes we don't need much.
<b>It is not quite clear what is the contention of Agniviyu. The India-USA Nuclear Deal and use of Uranium or Thorium are two separate issues. The Australian stand about supply of Uranium to India need not be given undue importance. The first step needed for speedy increase in power generation by use of nuclear energy requires the lifting of ban on India regarding transfer of nuclear technology by the Nuclear Supplier Group. This is possible only if the laws are amended by the US Congress, so as to provide special status to India.
Once this is done, all other elements will fall in place almost automatically. France at the moment has the most advance technology or the manufacturing of nuclear power reactors and other related accessories. Next comes the United Kingdom and both these nations will have immediate economic benefits, as soon as the ban on India is lifted. The United States also has the latest technology, but it has not produced any nuclear power reactor since the last 25 years. It will take some time for the US companies to set up production line for this type of product.
The second point of discussion relates to what type of fuel needs to be used in the proposed reactors. Initially, we should go in to use uranium as a fuel but subsequently should construct nuclear power stations with Thorium as fuel. Simply because Australia has made an announcement that it will not be selling uranium to India need not cause any panic. There are large numbers of countries around the world who will be too willing to oblige India once the US Ban is removed.</b>
If the deal get's worked out, and countries like Uk, France and Russia lift their bans, then I can see India gaining from this deal. History shows those countries being reliable suppliers.
'No comparisons between India, Iran on N-issue'
[ Thursday, March 30, 2006 09:09:22 pmPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

"...at the end of the day, India has been a responsible member of the international community when it comes to issues of nonproliferation. Iran, on the other hand, has abrogated its treaty obligations not to seek to develop a nuclear weapon, continually lied to the international community about that, continually deceived the international community about that," the Spokesman maintained.

"And certainly we do have concerns about Iran's involvement in proliferation of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Certainly we can -- one great example is going back to the contacts between the Iranian regime and the (Pakistani scientist) A Q Khan network.

The A Q Khan network was in business for one thing, and that was to help parties develop nuclear weapons," the spokesman said.

So, he said "the track record of Iran with regard to non-proliferation behaviour, I think is -- stands in stark contrast to the -- over the recent history, the behaviour of India in this regard and that is the reason.

< Previous|1|2|3|Next >
RajeshG, The linkage of test moratarium to fuel supply is not such a hard prohibition. It is only for fuel supply to power reactors which is a temparoray measure. The Indian plan is to use Thorium cycle. In the meantime if Indian national security concerns require tests then this whole thing is off. So unless one plans to keep a UPA type of perpetually shaky govt in power that is not an issue.

I understand but the fact remains that this is the price we paid. One could (and to sell it to US audience one should) use this to calculate and show this as the price that was paid to get the deal. Whether the price was good from US/Ind perspective is a different story but this is the price and BC has simply pointed this out. And given that the dupatta types are all going nuts with this, this should be appreciated.

Besides, what effect this deal will have on the thorium research (in terms of $ spent) is yet to be seen.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Nuclear cooperation: Why are these American intellectuals worried? </b>
M. V. Kamath
Free Press Journal
March 30, 2006


There is a curious article written in the New York Times by its columnist Thomas  Friedman. The subject is the recent agreement between India and the United States on the issue of nuclear co-operation.

India has agreed to put 14 of its 22 reactors under international safeguards by the year 2014 while agreeing to decommission its tiny military Cirus Reactor by 2010. The Indian arsenal can draw on its big three reactors now functioning and will also have six other power reactors under its control.

Importantly India can build as many military reactors as it wants, since India has not been a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India even now has two fast breeder reactors which won't come under international controls and there is going to be no capping on India's strategic programmes.

The fourteen reactors that will come under international monitoring will be kept  under safeguards "in perpetuity". But given the situation as it is, even under the agreement signed with the United States, India can, at least in theory, choose to have one hundred to a thousand nukes.

This has become a cause for worry for people like Thomas Friedman, who claims that he has high regard for India, that he `applauds' President Bush's desire to form a deeper partnership with India.

Only he feels the United States should not go ahead with the nuclear deal already signed "until India is ready to halt its production of weapons-grade material".

The fact that India has never sold nuclear secrets to any country, unlike Pakistan, is forgotten. The fact that India is - and has been under threat from Pakistan is forgotten.

Pakistan, as is well known, and as President Bush made it abundantly clear to Gen. Musharraf, isa proliferating agent and a determined aggressor. It has waged war against India with the tacit support of the United States.

The United States further never scolded Pakistan when it received unclear secrets from China. Indeed, the entire western world has all these years put India on the defensive. India would be only too happy if all the countries of the world destroy their weapons of mass destruction.

How many nuclear weapons does France have? And the United Kingdom? How many of their plants are under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency? Why did the United States let China leak out nuclear secrets to Pakistan?

Why hasn't the United States tried that notorious Pakistan nuclear scientist guilty of selling nuclear secrets right and left to all and sundry and why has it allowed that criminal to be let off easily? For the best part of five decades all the western powers, led by the United States kept giving Pakistan arms, equipment and economic aid, knowing fully well that they were all going to be used by Pakistan against India.

Why are we being compared to Japan? Japan had waged an unrelenting war first
against China in the thirties and against the Allies in the forties. Has India waged any war against anybody? It hasn't even attacked Pakistan except when being forced to go on the defensive.

India's record is clean in every way. Even while pretending to be friends with
India, the United States has raised its ante compelling India to divert its scarce resources to defence purposes. India has all these years borne American antipathy with patience and perseverance.

If tomorrow the United States reneges on the deal it has meanwhile struck with India on the specious grounds that US Congress support is not forthcoming, there is nothing that India can do except bear with American hypocrisy as it has done all these years.

India has survived over five thousand years of alien attacks on its culture, economy and all the rest and can survive another five thousand years, but it doesn't want to be lectured to by the likes of Friedman or anyone else for that matter.

To suggest that if the US Congress approves the agreement now signed, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will come apart is no argument. Pakistan, as can well be expected, has already started to blackmail the United States by saying that if the United States does not scrap its nuclear deal with India, it will be free to go its way.

Which way? Is it going to let A.Q. Khan loose on an unsuspecting world? Will it go to Beijing to seek help? Will it give aid to Iran to spite the United States which has been its main prop all these decades? Will it try to ditch Washington and become Beijing's supplicant?

After the manner in which it has acted all these years as a nuclear proliferator does it really think that is has even a leg to stand on? And does it really believe that it can afford to alienate the United States which has been its godfather all these years? Which raises an even more relevant question: Does the United States need Pakistan any longer as a bulwark against an expanding Soviet Union? The Soviet Union is dead. Russia has no desire to waste its resources on fighting another Cold War.

Russia wants no more wars, whether Hot or Cold. Can Pakistan be a bulwark against China? China has no desire to expand or even inflict its ideology if it has one on any other nation. It is content with expanding its economy which has been growing and it long ago realised that ideological warfare went out of fashion as an instrument of coercion. And if Musharraf believes he can do without the United States, he is living in an unreal world.

Today Musharraf is important to Washington as long as Osama bin Laden is alive and kicking. The day Osama is either captured orkilled and Al Qaeda becomes a forgotten name, Pakistan may come to realise that it has no one to depend upon except and that may not at first be acceptable to the policy-makers in Islamabad its good neighbor India. In fact it is India alone that can help Pakistan grow. If it thinks it can depend upon China it is again living in a make-believe world.

True, China has helped Pakistan in the past and may continue to do so in the future as well. But Pakistan's best bet is still India. The future beckons to Pakistan to make its peace with its eastern neighbour. After sixty years of unceasing hostilities if it still has not come to realise that war and terrorism against India will take it nowhere, it will only continue its downward slide into the fundamentalist abyss, despised and shunned by all progressive forces in the world.

<b>India's phenomenal rise will continue, Pakistan or no Pakistan. George Bush told Musharraf as much when he declined even to play a role in settling the Jammu & Kashmir issue. If by now Musharraf has not learnt that Pakistan has no more role to play in world affairs he has learnt nothing. </b>

<b>Turn eastward to India for strength and enlightenment, Islamabad. That's where the sun is rising. </b>
<!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Nuke deal: Saran speaks tough in Washington

- Maya Mirchandani

Friday, March 31, 2006 (Washington DC):

Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran has said the Indo-US relations would suffer if the nuclear deal did not go through.

Saran was addressing American lawmakers and conservative think tanks in Washington on Thursday.

His remarks came just a day after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it was for the United States to take the nuclear deal forward.

"If this does not go through, it does not mean that everything else will fall by the wayside. But we should also recognise that for good reason or bad, there is an intense focus on this agreement," Saran said.

"Whether we like it or not this has become very symbolic of what we want to do with the Indo-US relationship. Therefore, if this deal does not go through there will be some falling back in terms of the expectations and enthusiasm that has been created," he added.

Countering criticism

The proposed agreement has generated intense criticism among several quarters in Washington, and its fate now rests with the American lawmakers.

Critics of the deal have indicated that it would free India's resources to pursue a weapons programme.

"There have been comments that our separation plan leaves open the possibility of a massive increase in our nuclear weapons program," Saran said.

"I would like to remind all of you of our record of responsibility, restraint, and I would even say idealism in this regard. We were reluctant to exercise our nuclear weapon option to begin with. Having felt compelled to do so we remain committed to a credible minimum deterrent".

Saran further pointed out that there was no reason why India would change its stand of restraint, that could not be disputed even by the critics.

Hot debate

As the countdown to a possible vote in the US Congress begins, the deal has become one of the most hotly debated issues in the corridors of Capitol Hill.

Saran met a few Congressmen in Washington, most of whom have already pledged their support for the deal.

The real challenge now is to get the opponents to give the Indian argument a fair hearing.

"This is a major new proposal and there are varied views concerning its desirability," said Tom Lantos, Democrat Minority Leader, House International Relations Committee.

"I am confident that when all the facts are known and the issue is put in its global geo-strategic framework, we shall succeed," he added.

Lantos also said while he could not set a time frame for the deal to get cleared, he was optimistic that it would finally go through.

Scathing comments

On Wednesday, former US president Jimmy Carter had written a scathing comment in the Washington Post about the nuclear agreement.

Carter had suggested that the bill introduced in the US Congress would send wrong signals to countries like Iran and North Korea and open a Pandora's box of proliferation, despite being India-specific.

Well-known non-proliferationist Michael Krepon also sent out an email newsletter, titled The US-India nuclear deal: Another wrong turn in the war on terror.

In the newsletter, he said, "As currently structured, the nuclear deal accelerates a geo-strategic partnership with India as well as the demise of the NPT. No friend of India in the US Congress or elsewhere should be faced with this stark choice".

Clear signals

President George W Bush is now hoping to push the measure through a Republican-controlled Congress.

The moves come in an election year when lawmakers have already rebelled against him on several issues.

Meanwhile, the Indian Foreign Secretary message in the US was unambiguous – India cannot be a partner of the US in a changing global order, and a target at the same time.

It is being hoped that the message is heard clearly by the American lawmakers, in whose hands the fate of the deal now rests.

While it is true that the bilateral relationship has progressed on many fronts, many fear that a vote against the nuke deal at this critical juncture could seriously impact equations between the two countries.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Russia sends first lot of uranium fuel for Tarapur plants </b>
PTI / Mumbai
Kakodkar to hold talks on safeguards in Vienna----- Even as Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran works to fast forward the Indo-US nuclear deal in the US, Russia has delivered the first part of the promised supply of 60 metric tonne of enriched uranium fuel for the Tarapur Atomic Power plants, according to Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) sources.

The first consignment of 20-25 metric tonnes of uranium, which arrived from Russia at the Nuclear Fuel Complex of DAE, will be delivered to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) at an appropriate time, a DAE official said.

Both TAPS I and TAPS II have been renovated and have got the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board's licence to operate for five years from February 16, 2006 and therefore, the supply by Russia is timely.

<b>"With Russian supply of 60 metric tonnes of uranium, the plants will have fuel for next five years and run smoothly,"</b> executive director, corporate planning, NPCIL, S Thakur said.

Meanwhile, India's top nuclear scientist will visit Vienna this week for talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on a safeguards' accord proposed under the Indo-US nuclear deal to pave the way for resumption of nuclear fuel for Indian reactors.
<b>India N-deal in trouble: The Washington Post </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Close on the heels of some lawmakers of India Caucus opposing the landmark deal, a section of American scientists, known for their anti-nuclear weapons stance, have said the pact was bad for the long-term security interests of the US, India and the world.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Questions emerge on India’s nuclear power push

By Rajat Bhattacharya and Anirban Nag

Experts believe instead of joining the global renaissance of nuclear power, India should tap more of its vast coal and hydroelectric reserves that are cheaper in the long run and would do more to ensure its energy security

India could pay an exorbitant price and still fail to strengthen its energy security by accelerating the development of its nascent nuclear power industry with the help of the United States.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s pact with US President George W Bush last month, which promised to give India access to closely guarded nuclear fuels, was seen as the answer to the rapidly developing country’s quest for unlimited energy supplies.

But dissent has begun to emerge as uranium fuel prices surge and questions about the hidden costs of decommissioning, waste disposal and insurance arise. Then there is the spectre of accidents and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants in one of the world’s most densely populated countries.

Some say by pushing for nuclear power with US help, Singh’s government could be bartering one form of bondage, that to Middle East oil and gas suppliers, with another – that to a 45-nation club of nuclear fuel suppliers – to secure its energy needs.

“The deal will help revive the decrepit US nuclear power industry but slow down India’s own search for energy security,” said Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi.

“Yet those pushing the deal fight shy of discussing the economics of generating electricity from high-priced imported reactors dependent on imported fuel. Creating a new Indian dependency on imports is not a path to energy security.”

Instead of joining the global renaissance of nuclear power, driven in part by the soaring cost of natural gas and environmental penalties against using coal, he said India should tap more of its vast coal and hydroelectric reserves.

Both could be cheaper in the long run than investing the $50 billion needed to build as many as 25 nuclear power plants by 2020, and would do more to ensure its energy security.

Energy deficient: A shortage of energy has been India’s Achilles’ heel since the country aimed to ratchet up economic growth in the 1950s. India currently imports 70 percent of its oil, mostly from the politically volatile Middle East. While China and India have similar coal reserves, among the highest in the world, China is producing its own resources four times more quickly.

The nuclear agreement, if approved by the US Congress, promises to end India’s nuclear isolation and allow nuclear suppliers such as US-based General Electric, British Nuclear Fuels, France’s Areva and Japan’s Toshiba Corp to sell fuel and components to India’s atomic power plants.

But nuclear power plants lose out to other forms of energy generation in terms of construction costs.

PS Bami, president of India Energy Forum, New Delhi, said the cost of building nuclear power plants works out to 60-70 million rupees ($1.6 million) per megawatt compared with 30-40 million rupees for thermal power.

He says the costs converge after a decade of generation.

In the long run, a study by India’s Planning Commission found that the marginal cost of supplying nuclear power was higher than thermal power for atomic plants built in India’s coal-rich eastern region and the riverine northern regions and was slightly cheaper in the country’s south and west.

These studies exclude the additional billions of dollars required to dispose of nuclear waste and to shut down the facilities at the end of their 35-40-year life. Moreover, the price of uranium fuel has tripled in the past 18 months.

Chellaney adds that India’s limited uranium deposits mean it will have to depend on imports from the club of 45 nuclear material suppliers for this critical nuclear fuel.

“The global nuclear reactor and fuel business, controlled by a tiny cartel of state-guided firms, is the most politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract,” Chellaney said.

The United States halted the supply of fuels to India’s two nuclear plants built by General Electric in the 1960s after the country conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974.

But Bami, who backs the US-India partnership, said short-term costs could not be the sole determinants for choosing energy sources for a country where energy requirements are growing at 10 percent annually.

“The price of which commodity has not risen? We have to be practical,” he said.

“The overall life cycle of a nuclear power plant is very competitive compared to a thermal plant. It could also prove to be a reliable source of energy once the agreement is approved.”

S Chandrasekharan, director of New Delhi-based think tank South Asia Analysis Group, said the US-India nuclear pact was beneficial but not sufficient to bolster India’s energy security. “Right now, nuclear energy makes up only 3 percent and with nuclear fuel likely to be available, by 2010 India could raise it to 20 percent. This essentially means that India cannot live by nuclear energy alone,” he said. Reuters
<b>'India is a natural partner for the United States'</b> - Rice speech
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->First, India would never accept a unilateral freeze or cap on its nuclear arsenal. We raised this with the Indians, but the Indians said that its plans and policies must take into account regional realities. No one can credibly assert that India would accept what would amount to an arms control agreement that did not include other key countries, like China and Pakistan. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Iran not getting military training from India: Rice</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Senator Barbara Boxer said at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday that some lawmakers wanted India to end any such relationship with Iran as a pre-condition for the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal.

In a testy exchange with Boxer, Rice said that a Defence News report on a military-to-military relationship between Iran and India was "not right".

<b>"There have been Iranian ship port calls in India. The assertion ...That they train Iranian sailors is not right," Rice said. "Not everything in the Defence News is right."</b>
<b>"The Indians say that they do not train Iranian sailors and soldiers. India is not the only country in the world that has relationships with Iran,"</b> Rice said.

According to Boxer, two Iranian warships were docked in Kochi as part of a training programme under a "three-year old military cooperation agreement" India has with Tehran.

<b>"Don't you think it's in the best interest of America when we're going to do this extraordinary special deal to make as a condition that they end that relationship?"</b> the California Democrat said.

However, Rice maintained the US has made very clear to India its concerns "about their relationship with Iran... about the pipeline...About their initial vote in the IAEA."

The Secretary of State's replies did not seem to satisfy Boxer who said Rice' remarks felt a "bit hollow" and the nuclear deal needed "more checks and balances."

In her remarks, Senator Boxer slammed the Indo-US deal saying that the deal rewards India for not inking the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"One of the great incentives of the NPT is that non-nuclear weapons nations are given access to civil nuclear assistance. By allowing India to receive civil nuclear assistance while it continues production of weapons, India is being rewarded," she said.

<b>Boxer also felt that the nuclear deal will give India the capability to expand its arsenal of weapons.</b>

<b>"While US nuclear assistance will only be used for civilian purposes, uranium fuel imports from the US will allow India to dedicate more of its scarce uranium ore for military use," </b>she said.

Boxer also felt that the the timing of this deal negatively impacts US policy in Iran.

<b>"I understand that there's no comparison between India and Iran, but we still have to be consistent in terms of our policy,"</b> she said.
I saw Boxer on c-span. She seemed hysterical and angry. She also quoted from the Los Angeles Times a couple times. The L.A. times has historically been very anti-India.
Boxer is ultra-left-wing with an inherent white-liberal-superiority complex. I think she even made some pretty weird comments on India's NE (most prob Nagaland) and exposed her anti-India colors. I dont remember complete details of that episode.

Anyways, this was posted on BR..



BTW Vajpayee probably got over his hangover (maybe temporarily) and has suddenly realised the moratorium clause and made some noise about this. I'll be damned if any of the major media outlets are going to give major coverage to that story.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)