What the author says is right but more importantly the question is who are the people supporting this deal and why are they blindly supporting it.
The only reason for supporting this deal could be that the people are anti-India.
The bigger question is why has India not started working on alternative fuels rather than pursuing this No deal.
Most important questions would be :
why are our current thermal plants operated at 100% efficiency ? Why are our scientists not able to develop good quality nuclear plants and fuel , if at all anyone thinks that this is a vital source of energy ? Homi Bhabha started the nuclear policy with the target of making India self reliant then why do we have to go back to such horrible deals ?
None of the vital original questions are being answered all we are being told is that this deal is good for Indo-US cooperation and its going to solve our energy crisis. this is similar to what was being said about Enron too, today Enron is dead and we are in a limbo and worst crores of rupees belonging to common man of India has been lost.
Why are the Indians being betrayed repeatedly by their leaders ? what is it thats wrong with the citizens of this country ? or dont we deserve anything good at all ?
RE:This is right
by Sandeep on Jul 29, 2008 12:18 AM Permalink
People who support this do not blindly support the deal. They are able to distinguish facts from fiction.
It is clear you are against this deal but the reasons you have for being against are vague at best and the questions you ask are also confused. If you want to lap up every ounce of mis-information whether it is correct or not as long as it suits your intent to make this deal look bad, it is your choice. But I will make an attempt anyways. - Current Thermal plants operated at 100% efficiency or not, where is this question leading to? - You seem to be challenging Nuclear energy is not a good source of energy. Even if you did a little bit of research, you will quickly see there are a number of countries with substantial electricity produced by Nuclear. Please do this and find out and if you can not look for France. You ask, why our scientists could not do this but isn't it the reason why we need this deal? The reasons can be many from working in isolation, to limited Uranium, govt research issues etc. - This is not a horrible deal as you are thinking based on confused impressions. Name one point based on facts which you are really concerned about.
India has now made decision to go forward with the deal which is good one. If you still have opposition to this, go and seek Pakistan's help who is also opposing the deal as is expected. Maybe sincere citizens of Pakistan will listen to you and understand your points better. You don't stand much chance with more progressive f
The author is twisting facts, can be judged by the claim that India has only 12 nuclear weapons. It is very difficult for me to believe that India has only 12 weapons, when other reports claim that India may have 75 to 100 weapons, whihc i think is minimu nuclear deterrence.
the proponents of nuclear deal conveniently bypass the question , how much extra power we are going to get after this deal and what cost? will that cost help to set up alternate source of energy which will deliver much larger power. what is the ideology of opposer to do with the deal. shall we say that the proponents are the lackeys of the US? No , that is not the way to debate. let us put all the facts on the table. not selectively and conclude something detrimental to the country. any way irrespective of who feels what the govt is busy to get the deal through at any cost.and that cost will be borne by the citizens and not by the people who run the govt.
This is one of more useless topics on nuclear deal. Just goes on to talk about useless stuff. Whatever facts are attempted are twisted to suit his idea.
Firstly, there is no stopping India from employing minimum nuclear deterrent. This fear is utter nonsense. Only civilian reactors will be placed in safeguards. He talks about China's 1% reactors in safeguard which is laughable. This statement would be true if China had 100 reactors and 1 of them was in safeguard. A simple search shows China has 11 civilian reactors. Anyways, China is furiously importing some of most advanced reactors to increase upto 6 times the nuclear power generation. Then he talks about India's power generation being 16000 MW by 2020 which is even lower then minimum target which is 20000MW and some knowledgable folks have said can be 40000MW(with imported reactors/fuel). Fact is total Uranium reserves of India can not support more than 10000MW of electricity generation. It is altogether a different matter than UCIL can not mine at a lot of places due to their poor track record of safety etc. As is the case for usual opposers, this article is based more on ideology, twisted facts etc.
India is heavily short of electric energy and needs as much energy as possible to grow rapidly and pull people out of poverty. In future, if Thorium based projects become big success, there would no need to place those plants in safeguards. Till then, time to grow rapidly and not bogged down by very remote possibilities.
The Author has a view that US will cancel the agreement if India tests again. It can happen as "Both parties have a right to terminate the agreement by giving a one year notice."
Author has incorrectly assumed that France and Russia will toe US line in the NSG. India is too big and responsible power for that to happen.
The fear of Author(he must be a BJP supporter} stems from the fact that as a wishful thinker he is hoping Modi (or similar) person becomes India PM and India does what Gujrat did. In such a scenario US and the World will declare India a rogue state (similar to denying Modi US visa) and thus sanctions. A REAL POSSIBILITY.
RE:US Cancels 123 Agreement
by Govindan on Jul 19, 2008 08:56 AM Permalink
Nuclear deal.. I am notgiving much importance to nuclear test. My doubt is about reprocessing the spent fuel to increase the production of weapon grade plutonium for the FBTR. I was given to understand from my study that FBTR requires weapon grade plutonium for sustaining chain reaction in the reactor. This can be achieved only by reprocessing the spent fuel in the uranium reactors. Kindly read the paper report given below:- "But the FBTR still needs an initial inventory of plutonium to kick-start the thorium cycle and eventually to generate electricity. A blanket ban on India re-processing imported uranium - a condition for nuclear cooperation with the US - could make India's thorium programme a non-starter. Iyengar has one suggestion that he says must be acceptable to the US if it is serious about helping India to solve its energy problem.
'The US and Russia have piles of plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons,' Iyengar told IANS, adding: 'They should allow us to borrow this plutonium needed to start our breeders. We can return the material after we breed enough.'" In the Hyde Act it is clearly written that US President should ensure that plutonium production in India does not increase the day 123 agreement is signed by both the parties. Indirectly this is a cap on our plutonium production and development of FBTR . Indirectly Americans want to stop our development and research work.
RE:US Cancels 123 Agreement
by AK on Jul 19, 2008 01:03 PM Permalink
Mr. Govindan: You raise good points; some of them are within the purview of the 123 and subsequent agreements and others are different debates. We have to first understand where India is today. By signing the agreement would India be worse off, same as before, or better. Banning reprocessing of imported uranium does not put India any worse than where we are today. In fact more plants India separates from military use and makes them totally civilian use and puts them under IAEA agreement, more India can import for these plants thus freeing India’s present resources for military program and FBTR. India does not have to build any more plants; all it has to do is manage its present resources for military use without worrying about the plants already built ONLY for electricity using the same resources. US & Russia supplying to help start our breeders, economic viability of nuclear reactors for electricity, and safe use of nuclear plants, handling of nuclear waste are all different topic of debate and do not put India any worse off than where it is today. Once US Congress passes the 123 Agreement, its own Hyde Act gets superseded. Furthermore internal acts are not binding on a foreign country. India has to look at 123 Agreement and it has nothing against India’s interest. If anything IAEA agreement should be of some concern, mainly CLAUSE 10 and I have mentioned this fact in other forums on rediff.
This is confusing, whom to trust. Supporters or opposer.
Left NDA - why would they spend money to bring govt down especially when they need this money for elections just a yr ahead.
UPA allies - spending money for buying MP's if the article is true.
Look at Mulayam singh - this person didn't know what is a deal for 2 yrs (ever since it's been discussed) but could understood everything in 45 mins meeting with APJ Kalam. => He's definitely not supporting for India's energy needs but his "own".
Why congress pushing deal before US/Indian electoin - one reason could be if deal is really good for India, new US govt may want to amend it. If Cong doesn't come in power in next election, BJP taking credit of passing deal is unlikely after current havoc.
A logical answer to push for deal by cong. may be India really don't have Uranium & there are less chances of actually using nukes unless it's 3rd war in next 50 yrs. I agree that we want to advance in weapons like develop a light weapon (low yield) that would just destroy desired area & a delivery system that would not be detected when loaded & fired. But then, is it really worth for mere 6% of energy usage in next 15 yrs? that too when Iran gas pipeline is moving ahead - an alternative source?
US is not a friend of anyone - for sure!! Those people who think there exist a world beyond US, how can they think good for a country that was in the was in the group of Russia for last 20 yrs of cold war.
RE:who is true
by Prasad on Jul 19, 2008 02:43 AM Permalink
US is not a friend of anyone - for sure!! Those people who don't think there exist a world beyond US, how can they think good for a country that was in the group of Russia for last 20 yrs of cold war.
RE:who is true
by Gopal on Jul 19, 2008 03:28 AM Permalink
US is neither a friend and a foe. That is a Sovereign State with their own rules. They have their own ethics of life. India is another country with our own rules. We have our own ethics of life. When two countries make a declaration make sure that they do not disown their ethics. Live and let live should be the approach. Both are Sovereign States. Any agreement signed should uphold the sovereignty of both. This is twenty first century and not the medieval period. If India's rulers think like banana republics of the 1960s they are wrong. They will have to answer to the people every five years. Now it is noted that the deal is almost sealed. I doubt a Hitler is born. Sign anything anywhere without people's mandate. The technicality of 'CONFIDENCE VOTE' has no meaning. Hope the congress will escape from the hold of the dictator!! Read more ...
A balanced view of the whole deal. No one is talking about the radiation hazards and nuclear waste disposal. Actually these are the primary subjects to be considered. It is the question of survival of species. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY. Radiation hazards and nuclear waste disposal is the most important and expensive activity connected with the nuclear power. Google “Group up for �17bn Sellafield job”. They need to spend 17Billion sterling pound in ten years. The security against radiation is to be fool-proof for 10000 years. Please read my long post under “ Non-communal BJP? You must be kidding”
RE:Avoid this harakiri
by Govindan on Jul 19, 2008 12:44 PM Permalink
I fully agree with you. In a Nuclear power plant ,more than an 80 per cent increase in the costs attributable to spent fuel management (after taking account of appropriate credits or charges for recovered plutonium and uranium from reprocessing)” and this difference in costs “is likely to persist for many decades.”
1. If India becomes dependent on nuclear generated energy for sustaining growth then we are susceptible to blackmail from US and western world to not improvise or gain new knowledge in nuclear millitary technology because for this nuclear tests are required which are prohibited in this deal. Therefore India at one day will have to decide whether to test nuclear weapons and loose its growth.
2. If ever need arises to attack India in future by western world (it will only happen after decimating Russia, China and Middle-East) then IAEA will simply say India is using civilian reactors for millitary purposes and NATO will take it upon itself to dis-arm India through either sanctions or Millitary force.
India's Take:
India already has suffient knowledge to maintain and enhance nuclear arsenal without further testing. Therefore uranium supplies will never be stopped in future. or India understands what US is upto but silently agrees that there will never test again and be happy with a small and primitive nuclear arsenal to defend against Pakistan, for we need energy badly to grow and take care of millions of poor in India.
