Jump to content

Nuclear deal

Holysmoke

By Holysmoke
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Holysmoke Newbie

Holysmoke

Posted
Posted

I havent been able to understand whats going on. Can someone elaborate to me what the nuclear deal is about, or atleast point me to a couple of sites which explain wtf is going on. I know that its being opposed and what not, but 1. What is the deal actually about? I know that if it goes through, India will then produce something like 15% of its energy through nuclear sources. But whats on the other end? What are we "giving up" for the deal. 2. Why are people oposing it? 3. Why is it so important for the PM to talk of quitting the office if it does not go through? 4. Why is it such a big issue to take be in the headlines for so long? Why is the government crying over this, when inflation is soaring, and there is a food crisis around the world? These questions may seem naive, but I dont follow politics much, so I'd appreciate it if someone can explain, or atleast give me a few links in this regard. All the links I can seem to find is sensationalist BS (Mayawati did this, xyz threatens to do this.. but nobody says WHY!!)

Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted

There's a lot of background to this, but I will try to make it as short as possible. There's something called a 'Nuclear club' of nations, a group of around 12-15 countries ( dont know the exact number) that have had access to nuclear technology for long. Countries like USA, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Israel etc fall within the club. The advantage of being part of this club is that, it is essentially a recognition of the world's community of your right to research and posses nuclear power. These countries have the luxury of actively trading in the nuclear technology, can buy/sell nuclear technology to other nations in the club or other nations outside of it, can buy sell nuclear fuel ( which is really imporant coz Enriched Uranium is a real hard raw material to get). However, towards the last quarter of the previous century, many countries like India, Pakistan made their first forays into the use of nuclear technology. Because this was outside the gambit International Atomic energy agency ( IAEA), the umbrella agency that controls everything and anything that is nuclear, the right of these countries to posses nuclear power was not officially recognized. As much as there was a hidden acceptance of their need for nuclear power ( India, for example, HAD to use nuclear power to satisfy its energy needs), there was also this constant suspicion that we will gradually develop our technology for use in military purposes, which is exactly what happened. Now, the golden rule that exists in the nuclear world is, if any country starts a civilian nuclear program, the ultimate aim of it is to expand its scope into a military one. And more nuclear weapons means more instability, which is why is the West is generally vehemently opposed against any new nations acquiring nuclear technology. Ironically, as much they value their and right to posses nuclear technology, they dont want new countries to get that capability, which is why they are vehemently opposed to countries like Iran getting that ability, even though Iran insists its for entirely peaceful purposes, which is all one big lie of course. Now coming back to the nuclear deal, because India was still considered a 'rogue' nuclear state ( you might recollect the slew of sanctions that was imposed on us following the nuclear tests in 98), they were major restrictions on what kind of nuclear technology and the fuel we could buy from abroad. For example, they were stringent restrictions imposed upon us, in terms the magnitude of the nuclear technology we could import from the other nations, or the amount of nuclear fuel we could ship from abroad. Of course, all these restrictions came with a luxury, which is that, our entire nuclear program was totally outside the international inspections regime. We didnt need to show anyone what we doing, nor do we need to tell anyone what we are upto. This gave us enormous freedom interms of our weapons development program. We could do whatever want, without the whole world not knowing a thing about it. The nuclear deal was essentially an attempt by the West to legitimize our right to posses nuclear technology.But being the smart-asses that they are, they said that to India that recognition came with a price, which is that we essentially had to open our entire nuclear program to the international inspections regime, which means our facilities could be subject to flash inspections from the guys at IAEA, anytime. India agreed to this in principle, coz not only did this deal give us access to more sophisticated nuclear technology and more amounts of fuel, it also amounted to a tacit recognition by the entire world of our nuclear status. Now, its important to note that this came about because of our excellent record in nuclear non-proliferation for decades. You will often see the Iranian foreign minister complain on TV about West's double standards that while the west recognizes India's right to have nuclear power, it doesnt offer the same courtesies to Iran, which is in part, true But the Left and other nuclear experts in India were vehemently opposed to this deal saying that signing on the dotted line was akin to literally selling out nuclear program and letting go of a strategic and vital advantage. So, there was some modifications made saying that ONLY civilian nuclear facilities will be subjects IAEA safeguards and inspections, while the military ones will remain outside the purview of all those. This was seen as a BIG coup for India. But left still sees this deal as a sell-out of an important national security issue to the West. They say the West recognized our nuclear status not because they wanted to help us, but because they want to control our nuclear program more, which is why there is this big impasse between the govt and the left on this.

theguyinallblue Newbie

theguyinallblue

Posted
Posted

My question is..do we really need any more nuclear detonations?? i think our nuclear bomb technology ( according to Dr. Kalam) is advanced enough. we only have dangers from Pakistan and China. China can not detonate any more nuclear bombs because of some treaty and Pakistan will be bombed to stone age if they even prepare to do it.. so our security concerns are adressed with our present capabilities.... and we need Australia's Uranium for our Plants.. these commies are acting on the behalf of China.. i think there should be national debate involving eminent scientists and diplomats involved in this deal..and they should clear all the doubts of any one..including commies... i remember one Voting slogan which congress uses for commies in elections in WB... Hanshua Hathoda Taara..Jisne desh ko Beegada:giggle:

Guest dada_rocks

Guest dada_rocks

Posted
Posted

Left is right in claiming that we have been made to sing NPT through backdoor.. Even the strongest of votary of deal's defence runs on lines of he said she said that India is free to test nuclear bombs but if you read the hyde act you would know it's not the case he said she said notwithstanding. When and if India test nuclear bombs there is provision for sanction and return of nuclear paraphernalilas and all. Even blocking of further supply of nuclear fuel. India can circumvent by further expanding the India/USA business tie thereby making american threat null and void. Well chinese have shown that is possible. Moreover if India could trust Russia then in future once NSG approves despite american blockage India can get nuclear fuel. but impact of sanctions will be more debilitating since once you get cosier with use viz a viz nuclear technology. I suggest people read AruN Shourie's detailed article to this effect.. he is no nonesense man and gives you cold blooded details from the 123 and hyde act.. no he said she said nonsense. BJP's opposition draws its succour from this backdoor NPT entry. Govt instead of facing the truth is indulging in blatant lie that hyde act has no impact on 123 act etc which is BS of highest order because it's hyde act which makes 123 act possible...Congress should have cornered NDA saying yes it does restrict our right to do further test but what if any could you bring to the table with your negotiation power and made it a bipartisan issue but no Sonia mata her highness won;t even deign to brief the opposittion about an issue which needs bipartisan support.. heck even Sp got the wind of what is cooking behind the scene when Sonia mata had no other option.... Now coming to what would have NDA done since they were the ones who set the ball rolling viz a viz indo-american nuclear deal. I am sure they would have not done much different if any most probabaly they won't do anything different other than getting some cosmetic change affected in order to sell their point of opposition.. NDA and congress difference over this issue is very flimsy and even that is solely thanks to megalomania of sonia mata and communazi hatred for the opposition headed by BJP.... It's hard to fathom how bipartisdan support can be insured for any issue in our country when communist talk like headless chicken when PM calls Atal bihari Vajpayee Bhisham pitamah.. I am sure that was the olive branch seeking bipartisan support for the deal but communist will have none of it .... About the gug-ho over this deal all over the media as if it's the panacea for all our eneregy problems.. Even the most optimistic assessment says nculear fuel could solve only 10% of India's energy needs.. It's not going to impact petrol/diesel demand since as of today we do not egenrate electricity through gas diesel hence there is no question of nuclear fuel easing the demand for crude-oil , gas etc... So the question is should we sign for such a deal where we are being arm -twisted to sing NPT through backdoor.. My hunch is we should because 10/20 years down the line we will be economically strong enough to give the threat of counter-sanction like china and nothign will happen even if we test bombs.. might is right it has always been and will always be.. Now coming to leftist opposititon to this deal.. They are easily the worst kind of broken reed in indian politics that ever was.. Mind you these were the guys who once as early as a decade back were staunch votary of no nuclear bomb for India theory. So much so they were more pi$$ed than world power at the eve of 1998 bomb blast.. Suddenly they are concerned about how India would not get to have further nuclear-bomb test.. What an u-turn but then against communazis get frisky at very mention of USA since USA reminds them of the utter failure of their whole ideology and these clowns lose even the slightest of semblance of sanity. http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080704&fname=puri&sid=1 Karat was opposed to India having the bomb. But he wants India to be able to conduct nuclear tests. He was opposed to India becoming a nuclear power. But he wants Iran to become a nuclear power. The UPA government and Left allies set up a committee to settle differences. This happened years ago. The committee has met nine times. Each time the government reiterated its intent to sign the deal. Each time Karat issued an ultimatum to withdraw support if the government went ahead. Now a few months remain for the government’s tenure to end. Anticipating the Left’s withdrawal the Congress has held talks with other opposition parties to cobble a majority in parliament. It seems to have succeeded. So Karat asked the government for clarifications about what the government would tell IAEA. We still do not know if he will or will not withdraw support. Or when he might withdraw support. It does not matter. Forget the merits or otherwise of the N-deal. Consider the merits of Karat. On July 14 he will launch a nationwide agitation against the government’s economic and foreign policies which it pursued for four years surviving on his support. One understands Karat admires Stalin. What would Stalin have thought of India’s most powerful man? Wow admirer of Stalin and other stalwart Sitaram Yechuri used to say not a single drop of blood was shed iN Tinanmon Square in his student years in JNU.. ..India must have committed some serious sin for being bestowed by these vermins as intellectual politicians..

THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
There's a lot of background to this, but I will try to make it as short as possible. There's something called a 'Nuclear club' of nations, a group of around 12-15 countries ( dont know the exact number) that have had access to nuclear technology for long. Countries like USA, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Israel etc fall within the club. The advantage of being part of this club is that, it is essentially a recognition of the world's community of your right to research and posses nuclear power. These countries have the luxury of actively trading in the nuclear technology, can buy/sell nuclear technology to other nations in the club or other nations outside of it, can buy sell nuclear fuel ( which is really imporant coz Enriched Uranium is a real hard raw material to get).
where are you getting this from??? this is completely contrary to what i knew... the nuclear non proliferation treaty decrees that no nation may sell nuclear weapons or nuclear technology to another nation, irrespective of their status... furthermore, sale of enriched uranium is absolutely forbidden! infact, its is absurd to sell enriched uranium... one sells uranium ore, that must then be enriched in special centrifuges (a technological skill in itself that is the precursor to nuclear technlogy, specifically weapons. these are the very centrifuges that dr. a. q. khan of pakistan claims were sold by pakistan to north korea.
THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
i read the thing... very informative, but the section "exposing the arguments of the indian government and the apologists of the agreement" and the section "truth behind the agreement" are quite poorly written, exposing the considerable drawback of using wikipedia as a knowledge source... its presents the vituperations of a person who views the united states as a hegemonous, imperialist and any compensation by india to permit an inspection of its nuclear program by and independent third party of considerable repute: the IAEA as a "surrender" to this hegemony. This is very much along the lines of the government denying access to Amnesty International to parts of Kashmir on the grounds of "national security". poor source of knowledge, let this be an alert... read it just till the section "exposing the arguments..." begins. thereafter its south of a compost heap.
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
i read the thing... very informative, but the section "exposing the arguments of the indian government and the apologists of the agreement" and the section "truth behind the agreement" are quite poorly written, exposing the considerable drawback of using wikipedia as a knowledge source... its presents the vituperations of a person who views the united states as a hegemonous, imperialist and any compensation by india to permit an inspection of its nuclear program by and independent third party of considerable repute: the IAEA as a "surrender" to this hegemony. This is very much along the lines of the government denying access to Amnesty International to parts of Kashmir on the grounds of "national security". poor source of knowledge, let this be an alert... read it just till the section "exposing the arguments..." begins. thereafter its south of a compost heap.
Yeah wikipedia articles of course cannot be the neutral, authoritative source specially on controversial political/religious issues but I find them very useful starting points to read about things I am not very familiar with and then move on from there to the references they have choosing what would be the likely good sources on the subject.
THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
Yeah wikipedia articles of course cannot be the neutral' date=' authoritative source specially on controversial political/religious issues but I find them very useful starting points to read about things I am not very familiar with and then move on from there to the references they have choosing what would be the likely good sources on the subject.[/quote'] i think the article needs further review... from my understanding othe NPt as it was published in an article with regards to nuclear weapons proliferation in the June 2005 edition of the National Geographic, signatories of the NPT affirm and vouch to never exchange, sell or grant any technology related to civilian or military nuclear weapons, or the weapons or reactors themselves, or weapons grade enriched radioactive substance. furthermore, private organizations and contractors are required to seek (in the united states at least), the approval of both the congress and the senate before any transfer of technology or equipment. now, the predominant pet peeve of the ultranationalists with this deal is that: 1. it obligates india to adhere to the idicts of the NPT (of which we are not signatory), and confirm to IAEA safety and security inspections which they construe to be a violation of our national pride... some peculiar need to display defiance and arrogance through non compliance. 2. in the event of a nuclear test, there would be considerable consequences as uranium supply, technology transfer would seize... which beckons me to my next question... why exactly must we attempt another nuclear test? are we planning on a nuclear war with our neighbors? are we under a clear and present threat from another sovereign nation that we could target? again a misguided arrogance stemming from misplaced jingoistic ferver. 3. would make india dependent upon foreign supply or uranium and lead to a decline of thorium based fuel (throium, being a substance we have abundant amounts of). while this is indeed a true shortcoming, in exchange, our current "breeder" reactors would yield the way for more effecient, though not as high in output reactors whose spent fuel is quite timid in comparison to the potential nuclear grade radioactive waste produced from breeder reactors. this is something i am a bit ambigious about... must we aim for ingenuity at th expense of safety (keep in mind there has not been a single incident of nuclear waste from the numerous nuclear reactors falling in the hands of undesirables), or must be aim for safety and security (spent uranium pellets are packed inside super durable steel cylinders where they can sustain 1800K temperature for over 14 hours; survive a head on collision at 60mph with a locomotive and survive a 1000ft fall!
THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
Yes, Pakistan recently carried out another test of their "Shaheen" missile; YouTube - Pakistan tests Shaheen-2 ballistic missile
predator... excatly how much do you suppose is pakistan's strategic oil reserve... or their current capacity to develop ammunition, or their air superiority in the their region? let these fools waste a considerable percentage of their GDP on defense... let them test fire all the korean made missiles they want... we have what they dont have: economy. if you want to rip the heart out of your opposition, then defeat him till the junction he acknowledges that not only are you superior, but also that you are an echelon above him.
THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
There's a lot of background to this, but I will try to make it as short as possible. There's something called a 'Nuclear club' of nations, a group of around 12-15 countries ( dont know the exact number) that have had access to nuclear technology for long. Countries like USA, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Israel etc fall within the club. The advantage of being part of this club is that, it is essentially a recognition of the world's community of your right to research and posses nuclear power. These countries have the luxury of actively trading in the nuclear technology, can buy/sell nuclear technology to other nations in the club or other nations outside of it, can buy sell nuclear fuel ( which is really imporant coz Enriched Uranium is a real hard raw material to get). However, towards the last quarter of the previous century, many countries like India, Pakistan made their first forays into the use of nuclear technology. Because this was outside the gambit International Atomic energy agency ( IAEA), the umbrella agency that controls everything and anything that is nuclear, the right of these countries to posses nuclear power was not officially recognized. As much as there was a hidden acceptance of their need for nuclear power ( India, for example, HAD to use nuclear power to satisfy its energy needs), there was also this constant suspicion that we will gradually develop our technology for use in military purposes, which is exactly what happened. Now, the golden rule that exists in the nuclear world is, if any country starts a civilian nuclear program, the ultimate aim of it is to expand its scope into a military one. And more nuclear weapons means more instability, which is why is the West is generally vehemently opposed against any new nations acquiring nuclear technology. Ironically, as much they value their and right to posses nuclear technology, they dont want new countries to get that capability, which is why they are vehemently opposed to countries like Iran getting that ability, even though Iran insists its for entirely peaceful purposes, which is all one big lie of course. Now coming back to the nuclear deal, because India was still considered a 'rogue' nuclear state ( you might recollect the slew of sanctions that was imposed on us following the nuclear tests in 98), they were major restrictions on what kind of nuclear technology and the fuel we could buy from abroad. For example, they were stringent restrictions imposed upon us, in terms the magnitude of the nuclear technology we could import from the other nations, or the amount of nuclear fuel we could ship from abroad. Of course, all these restrictions came with a luxury, which is that, our entire nuclear program was totally outside the international inspections regime. We didnt need to show anyone what we doing, nor do we need to tell anyone what we are upto. This gave us enormous freedom interms of our weapons development program. We could do whatever want, without the whole world not knowing a thing about it. The nuclear deal was essentially an attempt by the West to legitimize our right to posses nuclear technology.But being the smart-asses that they are, they said that to India that recognition came with a price, which is that we essentially had to open our entire nuclear program to the international inspections regime, which means our facilities could be subject to flash inspections from the guys at IAEA, anytime. India agreed to this in principle, coz not only did this deal give us access to more sophisticated nuclear technology and more amounts of fuel, it also amounted to a tacit recognition by the entire world of our nuclear status. Now, its important to note that this came about because of our excellent record in nuclear non-proliferation for decades. You will often see the Iranian foreign minister complain on TV about West's double standards that while the west recognizes India's right to have nuclear power, it doesnt offer the same courtesies to Iran, which is in part, trueBut the Left and other nuclear experts in India were vehemently opposed to this deal saying that signing on the dotted line was akin to literally selling out nuclear program and letting go of a strategic and vital advantage. So, there was some modifications made saying that ONLY civilian nuclear facilities will be subjects IAEA safeguards and inspections, while the military ones will remain outside the purview of all those. This was seen as a BIG coup for India. But left still sees this deal as a sell-out of an important national security issue to the West. They say the West recognized our nuclear status not because they wanted to help us, but because they want to control our nuclear program more, which is why there is this big impasse between the govt and the left on this.
you dont suppose that we need to earn the badge of honor? when infact we were sureptitiously smuggling radioactive substance away from our Madras reactors being built with Canadian assistance in the 70s to construct our first nuclear bomb and then testing it under the veil of darkness... how do you suppose you would react if pakistan smuggled technology away from a foreign assisted nuclear technology program to fuel its own ambitions? oh wait... they did just that, and we have labeled them rogues... the west does not treat us india and pakistan as equals. understand that... there is considerable respect for india, its sovereignity and its passionate embrace of democracy. then does it not seem fair that in order to enter a legion of respected, stable and reliable nations who can be trusted as the shepherds of nuclear technology that we must maintain the very same transparency and accountability as the rest of this elite club? the IAEA regulations, and inspections would go miles to ensure that our civilian reactors are not being misued for military purposes, not being run beyond safety parameters, and secure enough to avoid proliferation by terrorists... a threat we are not adequately vigiliant against...
THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
There's a lot of background to this, but I will try to make it as short as possible. There's something called a 'Nuclear club' of nations, a group of around 12-15 countries ( dont know the exact number) that have had access to nuclear technology for long. Countries like USA, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Israel etc fall within the club. The advantage of being part of this club is that, it is essentially a recognition of the world's community of your right to research and posses nuclear power. These countries have the luxury of actively trading in the nuclear technology, can buy/sell nuclear technology to other nations in the club or other nations outside of it, can buy sell nuclear fuel ( which is really imporant coz Enriched Uranium is a real hard raw material to get). However, towards the last quarter of the previous century, many countries like India, Pakistan made their first forays into the use of nuclear technology. Because this was outside the gambit International Atomic energy agency ( IAEA), the umbrella agency that controls everything and anything that is nuclear, the right of these countries to posses nuclear power was not officially recognized. As much as there was a hidden acceptance of their need for nuclear power ( India, for example, HAD to use nuclear power to satisfy its energy needs), there was also this constant suspicion that we will gradually develop our technology for use in military purposes, which is exactly what happened. Now, the golden rule that exists in the nuclear world is, if any country starts a civilian nuclear program, the ultimate aim of it is to expand its scope into a military one. And more nuclear weapons means more instability, which is why is the West is generally vehemently opposed against any new nations acquiring nuclear technology. Ironically, as much they value their and right to posses nuclear technology, they dont want new countries to get that capability, which is why they are vehemently opposed to countries like Iran getting that ability, even though Iran insists its for entirely peaceful purposes, which is all one big lie of course. Now coming back to the nuclear deal, because India was still considered a 'rogue' nuclear state ( you might recollect the slew of sanctions that was imposed on us following the nuclear tests in 98), they were major restrictions on what kind of nuclear technology and the fuel we could buy from abroad. For example, they were stringent restrictions imposed upon us, in terms the magnitude of the nuclear technology we could import from the other nations, or the amount of nuclear fuel we could ship from abroad. Of course, all these restrictions came with a luxury, which is that, our entire nuclear program was totally outside the international inspections regime. We didnt need to show anyone what we doing, nor do we need to tell anyone what we are upto. This gave us enormous freedom interms of our weapons development program. We could do whatever want, without the whole world not knowing a thing about it. The nuclear deal was essentially an attempt by the West to legitimize our right to posses nuclear technology.But being the smart-asses that they are, they said that to India that recognition came with a price, which is that we essentially had to open our entire nuclear program to the international inspections regime, which means our facilities could be subject to flash inspections from the guys at IAEA, anytime. India agreed to this in principle, coz not only did this deal give us access to more sophisticated nuclear technology and more amounts of fuel, it also amounted to a tacit recognition by the entire world of our nuclear status. Now, its important to note that this came about because of our excellent record in nuclear non-proliferation for decades. You will often see the Iranian foreign minister complain on TV about West's double standards that while the west recognizes India's right to have nuclear power, it doesnt offer the same courtesies to Iran, which is in part, true But the Left and other nuclear experts in India were vehemently opposed to this deal saying that signing on the dotted line was akin to literally selling out nuclear program and letting go of a strategic and vital advantage. So, there was some modifications made saying that ONLY civilian nuclear facilities will be subjects IAEA safeguards and inspections, while the military ones will remain outside the purview of all those. This was seen as a BIG coup for India. But left still sees this deal as a sell-out of an important national security issue to the West. They say the West recognized our nuclear status not because they wanted to help us, but because they want to control our nuclear program more, which is why there is this big impasse between the govt and the left on this.
there has never been a protest against the south african nuclear program since they voluntarily renounced and decommissioned their nuclear arsenal... and while both japand and south africa possess technology, their's is employed exclusively for civilian purposes, an assertion the IAEA will affirm. if either of these nations wish to enrich uranium, there is never a protest, never a sanction... quite evident why. similarly, must we not move away from fossil fuels? must we not employ better technology? true nuclear energy will not quench our thirst for energy... but does the iranian gas and oil deal not make us just as dependent on foreign supplied fuel? not to mention the environmental cost of employing fossil fuels? furthermore, while we should invest heavily in wind and solar energies (we are actually the fifth largest producer of wind energy), of the potential resources, we are exploiting a minature fragment!
Guest dada_rocks

Guest dada_rocks

Posted
Posted
you dont suppose that we need to earn the badge of honor? when infact we were sureptitiously smuggling radioactive substance away from our Madras reactors being built with Canadian assistance in the 70s to construct our first nuclear bomb and then testing it under the veil of darkness... how do you suppose you would react if pakistan smuggled technology away from a foreign assisted nuclear technology program to fuel its own ambitions? oh wait... they did just that, and we have labeled them rogues... the west does not treat us india and pakistan as equals. understand that... there is considerable respect for india, its sovereignity and its passionate embrace of democracy. then does it not seem fair that in order to enter a legion of respected, stable and reliable nations who can be trusted as the shepherds of nuclear technology that we must maintain the very same transparency and accountability as the rest of this elite club? the IAEA regulations, and inspections would go miles to ensure that our civilian reactors are not being misued for military purposes, not being run beyond safety parameters, and secure enough to avoid proliferation by terrorists... a threat we are not adequately vigiliant against...
Only difference I consider that club megalomanic impartial condescanding towards the rest........ IAEA would insure that India's principled stand on not joining NPT which dictates big five could have nuclear weapons while rest can't gets watered down.. Who this resepcable states are u talking about India hase betetr record on no-proliefration that these giuts without signign NPT.. we have no firts use policy which BTW USA doesn;t have.. they can use nuclear weapons if they felt like that's what it means...
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
where are you getting this from??? this is completely contrary to what i knew... the nuclear non proliferation treaty decrees that no nation may sell nuclear weapons or nuclear technology to another nation' date=' irrespective of their status... furthermore, sale of enriched uranium is absolutely forbidden! infact, its is absurd to sell enriched uranium... one sells uranium ore, that must then be enriched in special centrifuges (a technological skill in itself that is the precursor to nuclear technlogy, specifically weapons. these are the very centrifuges that dr. a. q. khan of pakistan claims were sold by pakistan to north korea.[/quote'] I said nuclear 'technology', not nuclear weapons. The nations in the nuclear club are allowed to buy/sell nuclear technology, like centrifuge designs and reactor models, to other countries. For eg, Russia built the fast-breeder reactor in Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu. And of course nations transact in enriched Uranium. in fact, since Iran was saying that it was building Nuclear centrifuges to enrich Uranium so that it can be used for its power plants, but the ultimate motive was to use those same centrifuges to make weapons-grade Uranium. So, the EU, as part of a compromise agreement, said that since Iran's declared intent of producing enriched Uranium was for use of only in civiliant reactors to fuel its plants, the EU would actually sell Enriched Uranium to Iran itself. This way, the EU thought that they could eliminate the need for iran to build centrifuges that may ultimately be used for producing weapons grade Uranium.
you dont suppose that we need to earn the badge of honor? when infact we were sureptitiously smuggling radioactive substance away from our Madras reactors being built with Canadian assistance in the 70s to construct our first nuclear bomb and then testing it under the veil of darkness... how do you suppose you would react if pakistan smuggled technology away from a foreign assisted nuclear technology program to fuel its own ambitions? oh wait... they did just that, and we have labeled them rogues... the west does not treat us india and pakistan as equals. understand that... there is considerable respect for india, its sovereignity and its passionate embrace of democracy.
Of course it doesnt. Our record in nuclear non-proliefeation is spotless, which is why were offered the deal in the first place.
then does it not seem fair that in order to enter a legion of respected' date=' stable and reliable nations who can be trusted as the shepherds of nuclear technology that we must maintain the very same transparency and accountability as the rest of this elite club?[/quote'] We already have, which is why we were given the concessions in the first place.
the IAEA regulations' date=' and inspections would go miles to ensure that our civilian reactors are not being misued for military purposes, not being run beyond safety parameters, and secure enough to avoid proliferation by terrorists... a threat we are not adequately vigiliant against...[/quote'] Misused? I dont understand. Its common knowledge that almost every civlian reactor also has a hidden military component to it. And yes, the IAEA safeguards will ensure making our reactors more secure, but our record in nuclear safety is already quite spotless.
there has never been a protest against the south african nuclear program since they voluntarily renounced and decommissioned their nuclear arsenal... and while both japand and south africa possess technology' date=' their's is employed exclusively for civilian purposes, an assertion the IAEA will affirm. if either of these nations wish to enrich uranium, there is never a protest, never a sanction... quite evident why. [/quote'] Of course. Niether South Africa or Japan is in any way, a 'threat' to the US or its allies. Its only when countries like North korea, Iran and Syria try to get their hands on nuclear technology do these people get really jittery.
similarly, must we not move away from fossil fuels? must we not employ better technology? true nuclear energy will not quench our thirst for energy... but does the iranian gas and oil deal not make us just as dependent on foreign supplied fuel? not to mention the environmental cost of employing fossil fuels? furthermore, while we should invest heavily in wind and solar energies (we are actually the fifth largest producer of wind energy), of the potential resources, we are exploiting a minature fragment!
All this talk of cleaner sources of energy is just hot-air. Oil/nuclear/coal will continue to be our main sources of energy, atleast for the next 50 years The hue and cry about wind/solar etc is just to keep the pro-environment lobbyyists happy.
THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
Only difference I consider that club megalomanic impartial condescanding towards the rest........ IAEA would insure that India's principled stand on not joining NPT which dictates big five could have nuclear weapons while rest can't gets watered down.. Who this resepcable states are u talking about India hase betetr record on no-proliefration that these giuts without signign NPT.. we have no firts use policy which BTW USA doesn;t have.. they can use nuclear weapons if they felt like that's what it means...
NPT does not limit our access to indegeneously developed nuclear weapons... but forget that, why do we need nuclear weapons? The united states and russia have declared their current nuclear capacity, do not make any new nuclear weapons and have moved to decommission a good two thirds of their nuclear arsenal which is being broken down to create nuclear fuel for reactors. once we can match this level of commitment towards non proliferation, maybe then we can claim that indeed, we are a responsible nuclear power (which we indeed are, just arent willing to admit it since admitting that our process is civil and transparent, we will some how be conceeded a bone to "the evil imperial americans")
THX_1138 Newbie

THX_1138

Posted
Posted
I said nuclear 'technology', not nuclear weapons. The nations in the nuclear club are allowed to buy/sell nuclear technology, like centrifuge designs and reactor models, to other countries. For eg, Russia built the fast-breeder reactor in Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu. And of course nations transact in enriched Uranium. in fact, since Iran was saying that it was building Nuclear centrifuges to enrich Uranium so that it can be used for its power plants, but the ultimate motive was to use those same centrifuges to make weapons-grade Uranium. So, the EU, as part of a compromise agreement, said that since Iran's declared intent of producing enriched Uranium was for use of only in civiliant reactors to fuel its plants, the EU would actually sell Enriched Uranium to Iran itself. This way, the EU thought that they could eliminate the need for iran to build centrifuges that may ultimately be used for producing weapons grade Uranium. Of course it doesnt. Our record in nuclear non-proliefeation is spotless, which is why were offered the deal in the first place. We already have, which is why we were given the concessions in the first place. Misused? I dont understand. Its common knowledge that almost every civlian reactor also has a hidden military component to it. And yes, the IAEA safeguards will ensure making our reactors more secure, but our record in nuclear safety is already quite spotless. Of course. Niether South Africa or Japan is in any way, a 'threat' to the US or its allies. Its only when countries like North korea, Iran and Syria try to get their hands on nuclear technology do these people get really jittery. All this talk of cleaner sources of energy is just hot-air. Oil/nuclear/coal will continue to be our main sources of energy, atleast for the next 50 years The hue and cry about wind/solar etc is just to keep the pro-environment lobbyyists happy.
nope that is only the case with nuclear reactors in second generation nuclear powers such as india, pakistan, china and israel. toss in iran and north korea... the nuclear reactors of united states, france, germany and other nations in western europe are all civilian. hot air? france uses nuclear energy to meet 35-40% of its energy needs; denmark uses wind energy to meet 55% of its energy needs and finland uses 85% renewable energy; norway, the second highest exporter of crude oil after russia obtains one half of its total energy requirement through hydroelectric, wind and other renewable energy sources. dependence on old world technologies is slowing us down. virtually every solar and wind energy utility company has recorded record profits. an indian enterprenuer: Jigar Shah who won the Harvard business proposal award in 2004 used the paltry 24 million investment from Goldman Sachs to start Sun Edission, a new jersey based solar energy utility firm and has recorded a 1000% profit in 2006 and 2007. an indian firm: Suzlon energy is amongst the top three wind turbine manufacturers in the world behind only GE and Vestas. Fortune did an page long article on Tulsi Tanti, CEO of Suzlon and he stated that he begun in the field of Wind energy when he purchased two wind turbines for his erstwhile textile business before realizing the profitability of wind energy and dived in head first. His mutli billion dollar company has recorded large profits in every year of operation and he along with numerous experts are on record stating that if india desires, it can achieve 100% renewable energy power generation before 2015, without any significant advancement in current technology. so mull on that for a second.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...