Yes US can stop supply and even impose sanctions. SO WHAT? Is India not in the same position today? When India exploded in 1997 US did impose sanctions but later withdrew them. India is too big and responsible power for US to do that. If US stops other countries, France & Russia will supply.
Deal should be analyzed with this simple approach:
1. Would India be worse off than today, or 2. Same as today, or 3. Better off.
Worst case scenario: Same as today. Best case scenarion: Better off by conserving present supply for weapons and import for energy.
RE:MOVING FORWARD
by saravanapandian on Aug 01, 2008 11:15 PM Permalink
What happened after Bokaran-1 Blast. US unilatorly withdraws the support to Tharapur Atomic Powerstation, Then who help to run the power station Our first enemy CHINA ,RUSSIA & FRANCE only help us.
RE:MOVING FORWARD
by Suraj Singh on Aug 01, 2008 11:20 PM Permalink
Myth #11: India needs more nuclear power to assure its energy future.
Fact: Nuclear power has been virtually insignificant in India’s energy mix in the past, and will be no more important in the future. India has been generating electricity with nuclear reactors for more than 40 years. Yet, reactors supply only 2% to 3% of its electricity today. India has not built more reactors because they have not turned out to be as safe, or as clean, or – most important – as economical as originally thought. Even if India were to achieve a 50% increase in nuclear power generation (which is unlikely) such a step would only increase India’s overall electricity output by one percent at most, and would only increase India’s overall energy output by a fraction of one percent. That is not a significant increase in the energy available to India and would not decrease India’s demand for oil and gas
RE:MOVING FORWARD
by AK on Aug 01, 2008 11:27 PM Permalink
Nuclear power is a proven technology and may be cost effective in the future. If alternate sources are not developed then Nuclear Energy can be an INSURANCE. Risk Management for future.
RE:MOVING FORWARD
by AK on Aug 01, 2008 11:41 PM Permalink
Accidents happen even when we step out of the house. Safety record of the industry. Fossil fuel has greenhouse effect. As the oil increases in the future with dwindling of supply, nuclear energy may become cost effective. But one should never put all eggas in one basket. DIVERSIFICATION.
RE:MOVING FORWARD
by Hate Who divides on Aug 01, 2008 11:33 PM Permalink
Cost effective .....you are joking ........ it will create similar havoc as oil did past few months ........ Nuclear Energy will definitely make country people to have insurance ,,,,,,like case of chernobyl disaster or three mile land incident ..........its luckily at time of Tsunami Kalpakkam reactor shut down even though it is not made Tsunami proof it was just quake proof ............ not all the time luck favours
RE:RE:MOVING FORWARD
by AK on Aug 01, 2008 11:15 PM Permalink
By separating the Dfense & Civil Nuclear programs, India has ensured that present supply can be stretched for defense program while importing fuel for civil energy.
RE:MOVING FORWARD
by Hate Who divides on Aug 01, 2008 11:19 PM Permalink
It will fill the years starved reactors stomach by imported enriched uranium ...........it will start giving out energy to fullest capacity ........... which will help in reducing electricty shortage by 50% by 2050 and so called developed technology will arrive in India and it will create 10 or 1 lakh employment
RE:MOVING FORWARD
by Sam on Aug 01, 2008 11:15 PM Permalink
it is good in some aspects, bad in some aspects for india. we should have tried for a better deal like how china got with US.
US got lot of benefit, both financially and also bring india under a legal umbrella, which it can use later to screw india if it wants.
There is no doubt that now india is US's "beeatch".
