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.
RE:The Nuclear Deal
by ASHOK on Apr 24, 2008 11:24 AM Permalink
you are over blowing Nuclear deal after effects. Imagine middle east in war with US and Crude oil supllies going to nil.
US has stretagic reserves, they can survive years. India can not survive more than 15 days of Crude oil black out.
Under these circumstance if India has additinal 50,0000 MW through Westren Block supllied Nuclear fuel, than what is your problem. Other wise what is your answer to energy Security.
Can you assure uninteruppted Middle east oil supplies to India for next 25 - 35 years ( Nuke Reactor life cycle)
RE:The Nuclear Deal
by ravi prakash on Apr 24, 2008 02:48 PM Permalink
Sir, I don't think that Nuclear Energy is a replacement for crude oil or petroleum. The need for oil is to meet out vehicular transportation needs and not our requirements of bulk electrical power. Today this is being met with coal and hydel. Our poor energy management has resulted in a large stock of coal at Jharia mines of BCCL under fire. This has been going on for the past 30 to 40 years and we as a nation have no clue to stopping this enormous wastage of resources. In any case Nuclear Power is not going to meet more than 7% of our energy demand. The price for this requirement is too high.
