Quote:
Originally Posted by gamercube
I don't think the phrase "offensive operations" has been defined in the contract. It is pretty obvious what "offensive operations" are. The only case where there might be a doubt is whether to use the ship in UN operations.
|
everything have to be defined in contract, otherwise strikes based on intelligence can be called as defensive actions.
Quote:
|
So because we don't have an indigenous industry, we should accept whatever terms any foreign supplier sets us? You don't mind such terms being set on us? When was the last time the Russians asked for a right to inspect our ships whenever they wanted, and when was the last time we allowed them to?
|
Yes that is it, develop or accept.
I do not mind such terms being set on us, as long as they are not hampering
the usage of the equipment for the purpose it is to serve.
The Russians have not asked for such things, they wont turn down a military equipment contract.
That does not add anything to this, as it is not a Russian ship.
Quote:
|
You did not answer my question. Define "tight spot".
|
Okie, if we were selling some military equipment and had pre set requirements (let us say not using the euipment in a military training with pakistan or china) for that sale people buying the equipment will have to follow the requirements , or go look in other places.
You did not answer my question, what Russian transport ship?
Quote:
|
So why is this the first time ever that India has bought an American ship? Do you think that the Americans never had any "military equipment and technology" in which we were interested before?
|
This is the first time that we have the opportunity to do so.
Quote:
-Can you predict what we will be planning 10 years from now?
-Are added supplies of uranium enough to sacrifice the technological evolution of our nuclear stockpile and political independence?
-Not even an issue.
-Again, not an issue.
|
- can you?
- what political independence? Registering empty complaints about US aggression on Vietnam in the UN.
- If they are not an issue, why are we bothered about the deal.
Quote:
The issue is with us being able to keep our nuclear weapon technology up-to-date by subcritical testing. The US conducts sub-critical tests of nuclear weapons all the time, even now, as do the P-5.
In India's case, they are trying to even prohibit India from conducting sub-critical tests.
There's already sanctions in place to deny India supercomputers powerful enough to conduct simulations of nuclear tests, and India's current capability to do so on its own is unknown/unproven.
If we do sign the agreement, and in the future, feel the need to conduct nuclear tests, then we won't be able to, unless we're willing to risk cutting of uranium supplies to our power plants which might by then supply 10-15% of our total energy. Large swathes of the country would be plunged in darkness and the billions of dollars of investment into those nuclear plants would go down the drain.
I'd like to refer you to this thorough discussion we had on the nuclear deal lst year:
A question about the nuclear deal
Please go through it, as the issues are discussed in details.
|
There are plenty of arguments around discussing the nuclear deal to the smallest possible detail.
And yes the pros and cons are discussed in that thread.