What ever the anlysis by so called Technocrats the NDeal is still a mysery !Is it good or bad for India !Why Govt. did not show the terxt earlier and why now on website !Is the text on web site authentic or mere eye wash ! but one test for this NDeal is that if the NDeal if passed -there r still doubts - and Pakistam in near future is also allowed to hv such NDeal or for that matter even Iran then this NDeal is no good !If the Pakistan or any other Islamic countries also given to hv such ndeal then it is no good !this is litmus test !Time will only tell !but whether this NEeal is passed or not is still in doubts !
RE:RE:NDeal is good or Bad !This wil be proved with in five years !If Pakistan is offered the same NDeal then it is bad !If Pakistan denied such deal it is ok ! (Provided the deal goes thru at present )
by critic on Jul 11, 2008 12:17 PM Permalink
IT IS AN EYE WASH! AS IT DOES NOT ASSURE EVEN SUPPLY OF URANIUM, UPA is hoodwinking everyone, for a big KICKBACK!
Mr. raghvan, the author of this article says, India can withdraw any facility out of safeguards merely after a notification to IAEA, but the clause 32 clearly states that will happen only after a joint determination by IAEA and india(it's basically a determination by IAEA!) that the facility has become useless for any purpose. So the safeguards are for perpetuity! I understand India can develop an entirely indigenous civilian facilty which will not be placed on safeguards, am I right? For that matter, can india develop new military facilities in future? Do correct me if u anybody thinks i am wrong as I don't have the holier than thou attictude of congressmen.
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by All Right on Jul 11, 2008 01:25 PM Permalink
Joint determination is joint determination.
So what if safeguards are for perpetuity. No reactor is for perpetuity. They have a productive life and most of the reactors we put under the deal has 10-15 years life left.
Our militrary facilities are out of the deal, whether present or future.
It is up to us to put any future civilian facilities under IAEA inspection regime
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by Aditya Sinha on Jul 11, 2008 08:41 PM Permalink
'Joint determination is joint determination.' So if IAEA says a particular reactor is no longer of any use and need not be under any safeguards, India can independently evaluate and say that the reactor is of use and should still be safeguarded. 'Aa bail mujhe maar'.
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by critic on Jul 11, 2008 12:21 PM Permalink
Mr Raghawan is also misinterpreting the whole issue! Where is the official draft ISSUED BY the UPA GOVT. Anyone has got a clue? SORRY IT IS A SORDID STINKING AFFAIR!
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by Sahadevan KK on Jul 11, 2008 04:47 PM Permalink
All clauses have faults. The deal made to become FAULTS. It is anti-national. Full of lies around it. LEFT PARTIES ARE PATRIOTS. BJP AND CONGRESS ARE ANTI-NATIONALS.
The eight fast breeder reactors which are outside the safeguard, can in principle supply the plutonium for the weapon program, but by doing so those fast breeder reactors will be unviable. The remaining all the power plants which will come under IAEA safeguard will not be able to provide plutonium to the weapon program. Thus this aggrement will practically bring an end to the weaponisation program. I can imagine two possibilities, one, there must be a closed-door agreement between India and US, that US will give future protection against China, something like Japan, second India has already achieved enough Nuclear warheads, as a credible deterence, or may be a mixture of both. However, the fact still remains India officially is still a non-nuclear country.
RE:Re: View: Little to fault in IAEA agreement
by Aditya Sinha on Jul 11, 2008 10:49 AM Permalink
'The eight fast breeder reactors which are outside the safeguard, can in principle supply the plutonium for the weapon program, but by doing so those fast breeder reactors will be unviable. ' how? I don't doubt what u are saying.I think u are making a good point. But can u elaborate?
RE:Re: View: Little to fault in IAEA agreement
by Sanjay Baxi on Jul 11, 2008 11:01 AM Permalink
Yes if you want to harvest plutonium for warheads, you have to take the fuel out the of the reactor very frequently, which reduces the efficiency of the reactor. Since the fast breeder reactors are still under development it should run undisturbed for a long time, may be continuously for four to five years. If it is disturbed frequently, then the developmental program will hinder, and it will be delayed for many decades. But before, since India has many conventinal reactors, and they were not under anyone's surveillance, it was possible to harvest plutonium. The scheduling might have been done in such a way that not all of them are running simultaneously and some of them are under maintainance. Such information are available in plenty in the internet.
Subject IAEA agreement says inspection can stop only if return of all material nulear and non-nuclear. I want to know a clarifiation what is meant by non-nuclear material, because many of these plant also not under inspection have some component or another uses foriegn material, Like computers, simple components like Valves, safety equipment. Do we have to return all equipment then we can operate without inspeection. Because it does not specify which type of equipment nuclear, or non nuclear that makes us under inspection. Standard is nuclear fuel, and reactor components are under inspection. All non-nuclear components may be hearing to add even those plant not under inspection by this agreement into inspections.
I don't like the word non-nuclear material has to be return becuase it leads me to believe they will use this to open up nuclear plant and areas that is not part of the agreement to inspect.
RE:What is meant by non-nuclear matrial and it being subject to inspection.
by Sanjay Baxi on Jul 11, 2008 10:22 AM Permalink
A very critical component is the centrifuge machines, which should be under the safeguard, if IAEA wants to prevent proliferation...
RE:What is meant by non-nuclear matrial and it being subject to inspection.
by Ramanathan Umapathy on Jul 11, 2008 01:25 PM Permalink
Sanjay India will get centrifuged Uranium-Enriched for Nreactors as such Centifuges will not be in india except EU will be supplied Non Nuclrear material word is the word MMS is striving to hide and not submitting to country! It may be some critical components which even our exalted NScientists community with all chest thumping have not been able to develop! even after 60yrs.Dr Prasad ex Chf AEC should ponder over this rather than shooting down MMS ideas! What the hell he did for the country let him come out with clear chit on Value addtion to the country's NProg.He is crying as he was not involved because of his rusted theory of Indegenisiation and left leanings! Let us accept our AEC and NSceientific groups have not come of the Heap -with all their best efforts on critical components and India needs for Npower-generation! I am sure MMS/SG would not have sold india's interset knowing very well Dragon is watching us across Bomdila! NScientist groups crying hoarse as these scientist beauracrats, were not invloved in the deal, who became AEC chiefs by virtue of seniority rather than being a second Bhaba of the Nation!! Let us not get carried away by NScientst groups of India who want gubarnatorial assignments in these Multi billion dollar progarms!! India has the rights for weaponization as long as Mr Bush is President of USA and not any body else except Mr.Mccain Let Indo americalns support Mr.Maccain for pushing ahead Bush's programs in favour for India's weaponiza
This is hard hit... IAEA agreement doesn't contain anything that BJP and left are crying... No hyde act... After reading the IAEA text, all political parties should support MMS... Its in the interest of nation...
This is very poor on rediff's part. Unlike some other websites and channels, rediff has always supported BJP and has always seen to it that the articles and views and comments encourage BJP. we always considered as a truly BJP website and forum and used it!
Now this is a big let down. In the name of of truth, neutrality ,. debate and all, you are cheating us!
We all have always supported you thru our comments and patronage..atleast remember that. You can't one fine day act like a third umpire!
When DR manmohan was the chairman of planning commission, he used to trave by pubic tranport bus, even the car provided to him by government at then. This man knows the worth of energyand he is patriotic. Left is hopeless, the want only noice
RE:View: Little to fault in IAEA
by critic on Jul 11, 2008 12:34 PM Permalink
He is UNDOUBTEDLY an HONEST person WORKING for DISHONEST party. Why HE was not ALLOWED to take the lead to disclose the draft to be tabled in Parliament before going ahead on this deal. NOBODY has the ANSWER, & some IDIOTS are talking Rediff is a BJP supported site! Why one has to STOOP so LOW? Better such people should learn some basics before talking non-sense. EVERY SANE person in this country will be happy if India is going to Prosper in Power front.
