This is reply to MSAT and Jayaprakash who responded to my comment below.
1) If separation is "voluntarily", then why did Burns claim on 27th July, 2007 that all "future FBRs" will be under safeguards. So far I have not heard anything from Indian govt. refuting Burns' statement.
2)There is nothing in the 123 which says that India can switch the reactors. If you think otherwise, please copy the "inbuilt" article. Read "Article 14-1" of 123 for further clarification. It says, "India is supposed to maintain the reactors under safeguards as long as they are under India's jurisdiction", which means we can't shift reactors from civilian to military side and vice versa. Moreover, India is NOT recognized as a NWS either in 123 or in Hyde or any joint press statement, if you think otherwise, please produce such a statement.
3) You are wrong. If restrictions are to be lifted, they have to be lifted by NSG but here we are going to IAEA first before getting the NSG approval.
4a) Deal does NOT permit full civilian cooperation. Cooperation only some "aspects" of the fuel cycle will be done. Please read "Article 2d" of 123.
4b) You are assuming a lot of things. What I am saying is this deal does NOT say that sanctions are irreversible.
4c) This is mentioned in Hyde Act. Opposition made hue and cry to which PM made that statement, check out the Lok Sabha site for his exact statement.
This deal is not only about energy generation --India needs this deal badly because
- India does not have enough stock pile of nuclear fuel to fully utilize its nuclear program ( experimental research and power generation). - India does not have enough nuclear fuel to create more A bombs - which has a major implication for deterrance doctrine against China and Pakistan. - If we dont do anything now ( read as augmenting our nuclear stockpile) we will be left behind as Pakis and China will substantailly increase theirs. This nuclear deal will provide us with extra stock pile to generate energy while we free up our stock pile currently used for energy generation and divert it to making A bombs. This is the most important aspect of the deal - It helps us to make more A bombs. Now whether we need to do further testing or not is certainly not a political decision to made by our esteemed and knowledgeable politicians. I would love to hear what our scientists have to say on teh need for further testing.
RE:N-deal
by ASHOK on Dec 05, 2007 09:38 PM Permalink
Nitin >> it seems you are not much involved in practical aspect of a deal or contract.
Do not look at the whole thing as Binary 0 & 1 ( True false)
Despite Sanctions we are going ahead with 2 russian Reactors ( KUDANKULAM) because we worked out a loophole.
Similarly how we will acquire Nuclear submarine as we once again worked out a loop hole.
Same is the case here, Both India / Russia and India /France knows how to exploit loopholes.
But in case we remain too rigid and want it strictly ( True / false) we will always stumble and remain without Nuclear Fuel ( which is main concern)
Rest with 250 Billion $ Reserves, once or IF deal is ever through, there are enough US companies to lobby for India. They wont like to loose bussiness.
I have walked in and out of many Billion $ oil exploration / production deals. i know it was also a good deal but for Stiff necked or headless chickens.
RE:N-deal
by Jayaprakash K on Dec 05, 2007 06:40 PM Permalink
May be you are right!. As far as now a days situation is concered development is first. suppose you propose wind energy/indegenous n-program/what ever may be you suggest will atleast take another 50 years that's too not sure whether succeed or not. So what I am feeling is grab whatever knowhow from know is the best for this China is a role model.
