The article seems to end abruptly.3 points have been raised, only one: Energy security seems to have been covered. The other two, weaponisation and strategic interests with the US need to be elaborated also. There are several points that are important: a) The poor dangerous waste disposal regime that applies to nuclear fuel will mean giving up our sovereignity to the IAEA. The record of disposal of biological waste is seen to be believed. The monumental apathy and the resulting pollution of our water ways and the seashore will make our beutiful country a garbage heap and gutter economy. b) Weaponisation: Nuclear weapons are a waste of scarce resources.On the ground I do not think that our Govt would be mad enough to use it even assuming that hostile powers would seek to use them.The nature of warfare has undergone a vast transformation. The national resources include fuel, food, industrial materials, and also information resources. A modern day war would seek the total crippling of these resources in a systematic manner with a minimum of visible violence. This is the arena of strategic interests that we can build this even bypassing the nuclear deal. All in all, the nuclear deal is a cat's paw of the US to control our economy by bringing in place a regime of controls in all spheres of life, the likes of which no one in our generation has experienced. Our preceeding generation would say that the British rule was mild.
