Not a good deal for India unless you are looking for a useless pat on the back from west.
India needs to devlop Thorium fuel cycle reactor as it has raw Thorium fuel. Uranium is something west uses as they have that fuel. Why should India copy that then stay dependent on imported fuel forever?
India should NEVER give up ie: roll back its nuke weapons BUT improve and update in future as others are doing.
Inthe longrun India should set up super colliders for the IITs to use and come up with anti-matter etc for fuel.
Geo-thermal is also something india can also look at , but clean coal via gassification process is the best bet.
RE:Not a good deal for India
by Abhishek Khurana on Oct 23, 2007 02:03 PM Permalink
Dude, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The deal explicitly allowed India to process spent fuel from its existing nuclear power plants. Also, let me ask you one thing. In the past 60-70 years, how many times have nukes been really used? How many times have you used electricity in the past two days? Do you see what is more important? A nuke that you "MIGHT" use one day but will most probably not because even the 100 or so nukes we can make may be enough as a deterrant or electricity that we need every single day, every single minute? What will be more beneficial to India? Having a stockpile of 1000 unused nukes or electricity that will allow factories to produce more goods, people to produce more output and overall lead a comfortable life? To be honest, I have a theory here which may explain the opposition of commies to the deal. American foreign policy is just an excuse. The real deal seems to be that with cheap electricity, factories will be able to go for more automation thus resulting in more job losses for CPI's vote bank. Parties like CPI depend on keeping people in abject poverty and are anti any new technology (remember their opposition of the IT sector?) because that threatens to let go of their hold on the people. And that probably explains why they are so vehmently against this deal
