Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

India: Against U.S. nuclear conditions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Howvever, that is not the case with India. How much of an effect your or anyone's voices have is open to debate but it cannot be ignored.
    Just to give you an example, if India decides to agree in writing that they'll impose a moratorium on further tests and that they will cap their nukes, the PM of India and his party can kiss good bye to Indian politics.

    Is it now worth it for both Executive branch to pursue it?
    Sir,
    It all depends on how bad these 2 sides want the rapproachment to continue!
    A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

    Comment


    • #17
      Our scientists don't need further N-tests: PM

      Full article: http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/20ndeal.htm

      "In our neighbourhood, we have China, which is a nuclear power, and Pakistan that has developed its weapons through clandestine proliferation," Dr Singh said, adding that he could not imagine the circumstances that would require India to resume its nuclear testing, which many in India have said was the country's sovereign right.

      "Our scientists tell me they need no further tests. As for the distant future, I cannot predict forever, but our commitment is to continue our unilateral moratorium," the prime minister said.

      Describing the US as the 'pre-eminent' superpower in the world, Dr Singh said the lack of nuclear cooperation was the last remaining cobweb from our old relationship. "We can now sweep it aside. There are no other barriers to a more productive, more durable relationship with the United States. The potential is enormous for our two nations," he said.
      Thats what politicians do to pop the idea to their public that no more nuke tests aint so bad.

      Comment


      • #18
        big nose uncle sam....... lol

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by OoE
          However, I don't see this nuclear deal as the end-all, be-all of US-India relationship. Hell, the two countries almost went to war back when we were staring the nuclear gun barrel. Back then, China was our friend to no end, so much so that an implicit understanding that they came under our nuclear umbrella.
          Sir,
          India is not the type of country who really crave for any goodies from US. People like me wants India should be self sufficient & to be devoid of geo-political blackmailing that comes with this. Thats why not many indian internet warrior who will say a typical pakistani statements like china will help us or other moslems nations will come for help. We want to be a nation with destiny in our own hands.
          Hala Madrid!!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by OoE
            But once you've taken that away and look at the relationship from cold hard realpolitik glasses, then why shouldn't the US get as much out of India as possible? Why should the US kowtow to India's demands?
            I think that the current US admin understands India's execptional record in non-poliferation in in nuclear, biological & chemical weapons. Dept of Atomic Energy of India has time & again stated that none of its present or ex-scientists has defected to other country & GoI clean record in not dealing in such things.

            Also to satisfy the US, we have decided acc to the treaty, to allow additional survilance in civilian nuclear which are more than any P5 country allows. We have now also decided to undertake moratorium of nuclear tests.
            Hala Madrid!!

            Comment


            • #21
              I had a whole reply written then I realized that everything is off mark. You know what India's problem is? Lack of good snakeoil salesmen. You've got alot to learn from China.

              Consider this. China actually cut defence spending while under Deng Xia Peng while upping the rhetoric against the Soviets to a point of launching 2 wars against Vietnam. The fact was that China will fight. May fight extremely poorly and most likely be clobberred to kingdom come but they will fight.

              That sales pitch got them the silver platter from Washington.

              India? From my perspective "We're your only chance against China. So, don't piss us off." Not much of a sales pitch.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by OoE
                I had a whole reply written then I realized that everything is off mark. You know what India's problem is? Lack of good snakeoil salesmen. You've got alot to learn from China.
                India? From my perspective "We're your only chance against China. So, don't piss us off." Not much of a sales pitch.
                Ha ha ha!!! Dont expect that from dumb indian bureaucracy & politicians. They havent learned how to play geo-political game of this kind. We are still living in Gandhian-Nehruvian world in this regard.
                Hala Madrid!!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                  I had a whole reply written then I realized that everything is off mark. You know what India's problem is? Lack of good snakeoil salesmen. You've got alot to learn from China.

                  Consider this. China actually cut defence spending while under Deng Xia Peng while upping the rhetoric against the Soviets to a point of launching 2 wars against Vietnam. The fact was that China will fight. May fight extremely poorly and most likely be clobberred to kingdom come but they will fight.

                  That sales pitch got them the silver platter from Washington.

                  India? From my perspective "We're your only chance against China. So, don't piss us off." Not much of a sales pitch.
                  Yeah the China thing, US and China aren't really interested in a fight, so in America people would think its probably never going to happen.

                  Dollars, I guess. Thats what India can offer. IMO it should be enough, everything else is an impossible ask. And India WILL HAVE TO generate power. It's not going to stop if America refuses to supply and meet that need. America might not like the people India gives all those billions to instead.

                  Bottom line: It's pretty obvious India is not going to use the tech for anything sinister. If America's just interested in doing the right thing, then that should be enough. Weakening India's military resolve doesn't even help America much, so somewhere down the lane America's motives ARE going to get a little questionable for the Indian.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Asim Aquil
                    YDollars, I guess. Thats what India can offer. IMO it should be enough, everything else is an impossible ask. And India WILL HAVE TO generate power. It's not going to stop if America refuses to supply and meet that need. America might not like the people India gives all those billions to instead.
                    Even there, Chinese salesmanship is heads and shoulders above India's. China is actually open bidding on nuclear power plants with specific technology transfer spelled out in the bidding process.

                    Originally posted by Asim Aquil
                    Bottom line: It's pretty obvious India is not going to use the tech for anything sinister. If America's just interested in doing the right thing, then that should be enough.
                    CANDU - 1974.

                    Originally posted by Asim Aquil
                    Weakening India's military resolve doesn't even help America much, so somewhere down the lane America's motives ARE going to get a little questionable for the Indian.
                    What do you mean down the lane? Good God, Canada has trade disputes with the US.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-4-2006_pg7_30

                      See India's own opposition will continue to grow.

                      Imagine a scenario where India signs the CTBT and Pakistan doesn't? Local politicians will grill the alive. Pak may still get the tech from China without the same stipulations.

                      “Is this agreement about ‘energy’ or about ‘arms control,’ ”

                      Jaswant grills Indian govt over nuclear deal with US

                      By Iftikhar Gilani

                      NEW DELHI: Criticising the India-United States nuclear deal, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former foreign minister Jaswant Singh on Thursday accused the Manmohan Singh government of accepting nuclear arms control and a cap on the nuclear tests, adding that these conditions posed “serious national security consequences”.

                      “Is this agreement about ‘energy’ or about ‘arms control,’ ” he asked, while publicly releasing a 19-page draft agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation that the government had kept under wraps.

                      Asking 19 pointed questions on behalf of the BJP, Jaswant demanded that the government answer all outstanding questions before signing the nuclear deal and sealing India’s fate.

                      Jaswant, addressing a press conference at the BJP headquarters after meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss the Nepal situation, said that the BJP was committed to taking the “emerging India-US partnership” forward, but not at the cost of India’s national interests. Jaswant Singh is going to Nepal this weekend to persuade the Nepalese king to restore democracy in the Himalayan kingdom.

                      Describing the deal as “a very costly, an ill-assessed and imbalanced agreement”, Jaswant went on to say: it would “result in a significant erosion of our strategic space, abandoning of our autonomy of action, placing 90 percent of nuclear plants under surveillance by an intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regime, and all this just for about 8 percent of our energy requirements of 2025.”

                      Citing US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s request to American senators to think about energy and non-proliferation as “two halves of the same walnut”, Jaswant wondered how both the prime minister and foreign secretary could credibly maintain that the deal was about “energy” and not about “arms control” or “non-proliferation”.

                      “Either the ‘two halves of the walnut’ will have to be separated or the theory itself rejected. This discrepancy needs be reconciled. It is important that it be done now, before negotiations on the nuclear deal proceed any further,” Jaswant said in an elaborative five-page dissection of the deal.

                      He asked the government whether it was rejecting “the testimony of Rice and her interpretations of the July 18 agreement, which hinted that ‘permanent is permanent’, and all subsequent US statements on the subject”. Jaswant asked Manmohan to clarify Rice’s testimony that the “initiative with India does not seek to renegotiate or amend the NPT and India is not and is not going to become a member of the NPT as a nuclear weapon state (NWS)”.

                      He went on to quote Rice as saying: “As India cannot be a NWS without subscribing to the NPT and if it is not a NWS, it simply cannot have the ‘same benefits and advantages’ as the US has.” Jaswant added that through such statements, Rice had put reciprocity of the agreement in doubt.

                      Jaswant asked whether India would have the same status and benefits as the US and all advanced nuclear states? If not, he said: “How have we unilaterally volunteered control over the production of fissile material?”

                      Jaswant sought answers to another cryptic remark by Rice in her testimony in response to Senator Kerry’s demand that the US press India to comply with both the fissile material cut-off treaty and IAEA safeguards. “During the recent visit of Indian Foreign Secretary Saran, I told him in no uncertain terms that this is going to be an issue with the Congress, and that they should negotiate it with the IAEA as quickly as possible,” Jaswant quoted Rice as saying.

                      The BJP leader said that Rice’s comments ran counter to the prime minister’s declaration that India would negotiate the India-centric “additional protocols” with the IAEA on its own and not under US pressure. “Is it correct that this additional protocol will be examined by the US president or the US Congress, who jointly or separately will decide whether this is an acceptable agreement?” Jaswant asked.

                      Citing the government’s claim that it was not accepting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) “in disguise” and affirming its commitment to the July 18 joint statement by Manmohan and Bush, Jaswant asked: “Will India thereby have to abandon all nuclear tests forever? Does the US have any such corresponding obligation with us? Does this not amount to ‘capping’ our nuclear programme? And does it not cripple all our future scientific developments in the nuclear field?”

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/2...q=tp&file=.htm

                        Moratorium on nuclear testing vital to N-deal: US

                        Everything shouldn't be seen in absolute terms. Btw, India is buying US is selling. Negotiate a little give the US something more. I think the MND should be given some more thought, that'd be easier to do, than banning nuke tests.

                        I know this is not how things work, but OOE, if the Bush admin asks India to pick one sort of American demand (MND or CTBT) what would hurt India less?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Asim Aquil
                          I know this is not how things work, but OOE, if the Bush admin asks India to pick one sort of American demand (MND or CTBT) what would hurt India less?
                          The Bush Administration is not asking India for anything extra. It is the US Senate that is finding this deal hard to pass. The US Senate may ask for additional items but those items must first be approved by the Administration before asking India.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Jaswant grills Indian govt over nuclear deal with US

                            Saturday, April 22, 2006

                            NEW DELHI: Criticising the India-United States nuclear deal, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former foreign minister Jaswant Singh on Thursday accused the Manmohan Singh government of accepting nuclear arms control and a cap on the nuclear tests, adding that these conditions posed “serious national security consequences”.

                            “Is this agreement about ‘energy’ or about ‘arms control,’ ” he asked, while publicly releasing a 19-page draft agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation that the government had kept under wraps.

                            Asking 19 pointed questions on behalf of the BJP, Jaswant demanded that the government answer all outstanding questions before signing the nuclear deal and sealing India’s fate.

                            Jaswant, addressing a press conference at the BJP headquarters after meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss the Nepal situation, said that the BJP was committed to taking the “emerging India-US partnership” forward, but not at the cost of India’s national interests. Jaswant Singh is going to Nepal this weekend to persuade the Nepalese king to restore democracy in the Himalayan kingdom.

                            Describing the deal as “a very costly, an ill-assessed and imbalanced agreement”, Jaswant went on to say: it would “result in a significant erosion of our strategic space, abandoning of our autonomy of action, placing 90 percent of nuclear plants under surveillance by an intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regime, and all this just for about 8 percent of our energy requirements of 2025.”

                            Citing US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s request to American senators to think about energy and non-proliferation as “two halves of the same walnut”, Jaswant wondered how both the prime minister and foreign secretary could credibly maintain that the deal was about “energy” and not about “arms control” or “non-proliferation”.

                            “Either the ‘two halves of the walnut’ will have to be separated or the theory itself rejected. This discrepancy needs be reconciled. It is important that it be done now, before negotiations on the nuclear deal proceed any further,” Jaswant said in an elaborative five-page dissection of the deal.

                            He asked the government whether it was rejecting “the testimony of Rice and her interpretations of the July 18 agreement, which hinted that ‘permanent is permanent’, and all subsequent US statements on the subject”. Jaswant asked Manmohan to clarify Rice’s testimony that the “initiative with India does not seek to renegotiate or amend the NPT and India is not and is not going to become a member of the NPT as a nuclear weapon state (NWS)”.

                            He went on to quote Rice as saying: “As India cannot be a NWS without subscribing to the NPT and if it is not a NWS, it simply cannot have the ‘same benefits and advantages’ as the US has.” Jaswant added that through such statements, Rice had put reciprocity of the agreement in doubt.

                            Jaswant asked whether India would have the same status and benefits as the US and all advanced nuclear states? If not, he said: “How have we unilaterally volunteered control over the production of fissile material?”

                            Jaswant sought answers to another cryptic remark by Rice in her testimony in response to Senator Kerry’s demand that the US press India to comply with both the fissile material cut-off treaty and IAEA safeguards. “During the recent visit of Indian Foreign Secretary Saran, I told him in no uncertain terms that this is going to be an issue with the Congress, and that they should negotiate it with the IAEA as quickly as possible,” Jaswant quoted Rice as saying.

                            The BJP leader said that Rice’s comments ran counter to the prime minister’s declaration that India would negotiate the India-centric “additional protocols” with the IAEA on its own and not under US pressure. “Is it correct that this additional protocol will be examined by the US president or the US Congress, who jointly or separately will decide whether this is an acceptable agreement?” Jaswant asked.

                            Citing the government’s claim that it was not accepting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) “in disguise” and affirming its commitment to the July 18 joint statement by Manmohan and Bush, Jaswant asked: “Will India thereby have to abandon all nuclear tests forever? Does the US have any such corresponding obligation with us? Does this not amount to ‘capping’ our nuclear programme? And does it not cripple all our future scientific developments in the nuclear field?”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The point that Jaswant Singh makes about just 8% of our energy needs coming from nuclear energy is valid.

                              Is 8% more important than not placing 90% of our raectors under IAEA?

                              But Kakodkar and others have rallied behind this deal, have they not?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                If it wasn't for the Congress trying to add a testing ban rider to the bill, I wouldn't mind the deal because India only needs about 10 reactors to produce all of its fissile material for nukes. Any more would be a waste of money and resouces. So if India builds 100 reactors without safeguards, India would end up using only 10 reactors to produce nuke materials.

                                I see the J-18 agreement as a win win situation. It cost very little for India but the Congresswallas want to exact their pound of flesh. Fvck them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X