# The Final Debate....



## hsr (Jul 7, 2008)

As you all know, the Nuclear deal of India and america is going to be signed.
Express your views and comments....
My opinion is :
*I STRONGLY OPPOSE IT*

if you don't know what it is yet, refer the given links...
Vote for it.....

*www.hinduonnet.com/2006/06/16/stories/2006061602441300.htm
*www.usinpac.com/nuclear_deal/index.html


----------



## karnivore (Jul 7, 2008)

Voted in favour. It is not something that will bring in immediate benefit to India. In the long run, however, it will be beneficial to India.

Besides, you, being a thread starter, have not clarified why you strongly oppose it.


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Jul 7, 2008)

India need the deal!

There is no choice!


----------



## Abhishek Dwivedi (Jul 7, 2008)

am not much into all this crap but dsnt signing the deal makes india dependnt on US??


----------



## karnivore (Jul 8, 2008)

Abhishek Dwivedi said:


> am not much into all this crap but dsnt signing the deal makes india dependnt on US??


Instead of explaining why it won't, let me ask you an even simpler question:

When was independent India, not dependent ?


----------



## utsav (Jul 8, 2008)

+1

I will call people opposing this deal the biggest a&& h?%*¤ .do u f*%%& know the state of india? China has 5 times more electricity production capacity than india. We will not improve at higher rate if this nuclear deal is not signed asap  this nuclear deal wil hav several long term advantages too so y oppose it ?


----------



## ravi_9793 (Jul 8, 2008)

voted in favor. Indian need it


----------



## goobimama (Jul 8, 2008)

Can someone explain within 50 words what the treaty is all about?


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 8, 2008)

Goobi vote for the last option first! Then ask for explanations!

The fact is that US in NOT the only supplier. Hell, they are even changing their law to make an exception for India. They need us against the Chinese and we need them and their energy as well. Chinese are a common enemy, so why not make the most out of it. 

There are a number of other countries in NSG. A number of them would be happy to supply fuel. Take the French and Russians for example. Then there are British who might shout sh!t but at the end of the day shove it in and support Indians. The only people in NSG who are going conky with the bonkers are the Australians, Swiss, Swedish and may be the Norwegians.

We need this deal real bad. We have a really big energy crisis on the horizon and Nuc energy is one of the few feasible options we have.


----------



## Hitboxx (Jul 8, 2008)

_Edited the poll so as not to show the voted names, as it will deem into violence on the forum._


----------



## cooldudie3 (Jul 8, 2008)

What, AHEM, is this about?
I really don't understand all those words!


----------



## goobimama (Jul 8, 2008)

^^ Looks like all the macboys are dumb when it comes to politics! I just voted for the last option...


----------



## nish_higher (Jul 8, 2008)

utsav said:


> +1
> 
> I will call people opposing this deal the biggest a&& h?%*¤ .do u f*%%& know the state of india? China has 5 times more electricity production capacity than india. We will not improve at higher rate if this nuclear deal is not signed asap  this nuclear deal wil hav several long term advantages too so y oppose it ?



+1 and i voted in favour.

dont understand whts teh problem if u get electricity..during power cuts all these ppl do is curse the govt.





goobimama said:


> ^^ Looks like all the macboys are dumb when it comes to politics! I just voted for the last option...



oi not all


----------



## iMav (Jul 8, 2008)

I think it is highly stupid for any of us to comment on this! The Left does not know all the details. No one does! Australia has already said no to supplying nuclear material to India. For one, the BJP hasn't been opposing it as vocally they do on other issues. The Left has withdrawn support. SP of all parties has pledged support, that too after considering Kalam. The deal has been made into a 'Muslims won't support you if you vote for it'. The whole thing is un-clear. The govt. of India has done the mistake that MS made with Vista. Bad marketing. No one knows squat about it!


----------



## ico (Jul 8, 2008)

What I feel about the left parties is that they're indirectly supported by China for creating this dilemma over the deal.....


----------



## IronManForever (Jul 8, 2008)

I am against it, I do care energy crisis in south-east asia. But I being more influenced by the Left; am concerned to supporting them. I find their reasons being equally justified. Simply put, I am a Left Fanboy. Now, thats a bold acceptance.  Or maybe IronMan just turned green?


----------



## praka123 (Jul 8, 2008)

I am tempted to support the  nuc deal.but at the same time ,concerned about USA gonna make us their puppets


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 8, 2008)

We soo need the deal to ensure energy security for the future. We need power to continue our growth as a developing nation. 

As for getting dependent on USA, India is already committed for trade, weapons and other tech stuff with US. So why shy away from the deal which will ultimately help the country?

Also its Quid Pro Quo in todays world.


----------



## Abhishek Dwivedi (Jul 8, 2008)

alright...now i get the point...may b i was wnrg...now i say WE NEED THIS..


----------



## ico (Jul 8, 2008)

Well, this is just a DEAL....How will the US make us their puppets??

Canada, Australia and other countries have already said NO to supply us Uranium, Thorium for our reactors if we don't sign the deal.....And if we don't sign the deal, we won't even get the electricity which we are getting at the moment because we'll have no uranium for our reactors.......which is again a loss......Those left parties can't see our country progressing......Thats what I feel.....

Like the way blind Capitalism sucks, blind Communism sucks too.......


----------



## praka123 (Jul 8, 2008)

well ,I am a anti-communist from the core  JFYI.

But ,IIRC ,I read that North East states got lot of uranium deposits?same way Thorium on west coast of India?


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 8, 2008)

Though India found deposits of Uranium in North-East, it would take lot of time to develop those into proper mines, considering that all present protests against the mines from the local tribals are pacified. A little info on that here

And as for the case of Thorium, reactor design challenges and a Cold War-era interest in using nuclear waste byproducts in atomic bombs pushed the industry to use uranium as its primary fuel. 

Our country has announced that it would begin testing the safety of a design of its own. But then again this would take lot of time. Thorium usage is good as it produces lesser byproducts.  You can read more here


----------



## mayanks_098 (Jul 8, 2008)

+1 in favour
We need the deal if we want power which is ever important for developing India.
Think,do these bloody  politicians know better than hon Mr APJ Abdul Kalaam? (& other scientists)


----------



## praka123 (Jul 8, 2008)

what if a war broke down and the enemies target our nuclear reactors?


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 8, 2008)

^^ hows that reacted to the deal?

BTW we already have nuclear reactors running, dont we? 

If the attacking country's intention is to start a nuclear war, it will simply nuke us and not bother attacking the reactors.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 9, 2008)

^well ,sorry for the offtopic that is


----------



## utsav (Jul 9, 2008)

praka123 said:


> I am tempted to support the  nuc deal.but at the same time ,concerned about USA gonna make us their puppets



are'nt we puppets right now too if u think the othr way ?¿ 90% + of indian sites r hosted on us servers . What if us govt makes a law that indian sites r not allowed on us servers  . Am not joking .just think abt my point. Its just a 1 point.


----------



## Indyan (Jul 9, 2008)

Definitely yes.


Abhishek Dwivedi said:


> am not much into all this crap but dsnt signing the deal makes india dependnt on US??


No.
The major worry is that the US may force India to change its stance regarding the Iran issue. But, that wont happen. Why?
Politics. The muslim vote bank is cruicial to every party. If the indian gov goes against Iran and toys the US line of thought then the ruling part is sure to loose a significant chunk of the muslim vote bank and no party is so dumb.

Next up, the deal statement doesnt include anything specific regarding foreign policy that would allow US to force India's hand.


----------



## afonofa (Jul 9, 2008)

karnivore said:


> It is not something that will bring in immediate benefit to India. In the long run, however, it will be beneficial to India.


I think it will be more beneficial in the very near future for obtaining uranium for our current reactors and fast tracking our knowledge about the tech required to fully utilize it. Hopefully in the next 20-30 years we can expect our Fast Breeder Reactor tech to be fully operational and we can then rely on our thorium deposits for our power needs. (India has atleast 30% of the world's known thorium deposits)



iMav said:


> I think it is highly stupid for any of us to comment on this! The Left does not know all the details...For one, the BJP hasn't been opposing it as vocally they do on other issues.


I don't think it's stupid to comment on the N-deal. If I don't know about something, then I want to talk about it, share opinions and in the process maybe learn something. Lack of details isn't going to stop me from sharing my views but a lack of sharing my views is definitely going to stop me from learning. 

The BJP maybe sees a chance of coming to power in the next election and maybe they want to keep a window open, if they bad mouth the deal too much now they won't be able to explain why they went ahead with the deal and show off that they did the right thing for the country...who knows!



gagandeep said:


> What I feel about the left parties is that they're indirectly supported by China for creating this dilemma over the deal.....



Even if China isn't supporting the Left parties, the Left are anyway doing everything the Chinese would have wanted them to. The Left's idealogy is different from the Congress, but aren't they still Indian  What I don't understand is what can the Left possibly hope to gain by trying to make sure China stays a step ahead of India, which is what will be if we don't sign this deal. If they are so pro-China, they should just go live there! 



praka123 said:


> I am tempted to support the  nuc deal.but at the same time ,concerned about USA gonna make us their puppets




```
[LIST]
[*]India must stand up to the world.
[/LIST] [LIST]
[*]Because I believe that unless India stands up to the world, no one will repect us.
[/LIST] [LIST]
[*][B][SIZE="2"][U]Only Strength respects strength.[/U][/SIZE][/B]
[/LIST] [LIST]
[*]We must be strong not only as a military power but also as an economic power.
[/LIST] [LIST]
[*]Both must go hand-in-hand.
[/LIST]

Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam
```
Nobody is going to make a puppet out of us unless we let them. There's not going to be any military strength without money and how can we expect to be an economic (super?)power when the government asks industries to remain shut to conserve electricity to avoid powercuts?!



mayanks_098 said:


> We need the deal if we want power which is ever important for developing India.
> Think,do these bloody  politicians know better than hon Mr APJ Abdul Kalaam? (& other scientists)


Agreed. It's also not just power generation which will get a boost by this N-deal. There are other sectors where India's progress has been lagging directly/indirectly because of our nuclear isolation from the rest of the world. Supercomputing is one such sector. The tech in this sector is dual-use(civil and military). It can be used to further India's nuclear weapons programme and hence(thanks to the USA) we are isolated from the rest of the world in this respect. After the N-deal a lot of the dual-use tech that India finds tough to acquire or develop will be much more easily available.

The N-deal is off if later on India conducts a nuclear test(Pokhran style KABOOM!!) but with supercomputers and the data from the Pokhran tests, we may never need to conduct further nuclear tests to refine our nukes(nuclear explosion simulation). Yea they are going to put in place safeguards to make sure that India doesn't use dual-use tech to further its nuclear weapons programme but they also had all their spy satellites and they had absolutely no clue that India was going to conduct a nuclear test when we did. They even believe that AQ Khan was running his nuclear proliferation network without the Musharraf govt. knowing about it.  So it will be difficult but not impossible to further our nuclear weapons programme after the deal.  

With respect to supercomputers or other cutting edge technology, even without anybody's help, we will eventually catch up with the rest of the world, but in today's world, who has the time to wait for that eventuality? Not India and certainly not her people. I don't want to be a 100 years old before I see my country at par with the rest of the world.

On a side note, permanent membership of the UN Security Council was offered to India first and when we(Pandit Nehru) declined, it went to China. The 5 permanent members have the right to veto major decisions of the UN. Now China has the power(and exercised it) to veto India's inclusion as UNSC permanent member. In the past China has already been offered a similar nuclear deal and accepted it. Should India make the same mistake again?


praka123 said:


> what if a war broke down and the enemies target our nuclear reactors?


After the deal, once we can acquire nuclear fuel for our reactors from abroad, we can use our own uranium resources to boost our nuclear weapons arsenal(I support a minimum credible nuclear deterrent). Nobody in their right mind is going to go to war with a country possesing nukes and then take out that country's nuclear reactors. 

What if greenhouse gases released by our bikes and cows(methane) cause global warming and melt the polar icecaps?...Let's trade in our bikes for horses and stick a cork in those cows!  

What if women play hard to get?...Let's switch to the _other option_ and stop trying to mate!

What if someone hijacks a plane and flies it into a skyscraper?!...Let's stop reaching for the sky and go live in underground caves 

If you read through all of that then you know what voted for in the poll


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Jul 9, 2008)

^^nice post.Exactly the point that need to be understood--Nuclear weapons development is futile anyways,just a show off while nuclear power is the need of the hour.A Nuke war will still end up with all or most of us killed even if we have what we have currently or some more advanced weapons,I hope you guys get my point,WW3 is the end of homo sapiens if it ever happens.

We still depend on coal for a major chunk of our electricity produced,while some countries like France uses nuclear reactors for as much as 80% of their total power needs iirc.Nuclear reactors are far more compact,powerful,cleaner,and cheaper after initial set-up costs.And oh yes far more reliable unlike the same old process of boiling water,:S.

on a side note:UN is nothing but a defunct piece of sh!t after the Iraq war and nobody gives a **** about it anymore,it has lost its credibility completely.


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 9, 2008)

@afonofa: Nice post.

Also, the fact remains that if the deal isn't done, there isn't much chance that some future US govt. will bother to do the deal again. And even if it does, it will be too little, too late by then.

Not to forget the credibility of our Nation is at stake. You just dont sign up an agreement and say later that Sorry, you can't keep it up. If the left is so worried about the deal, why did it even let the agreement get signed in the first place? Why not pull out of govt then itself? It's just that most political parties are playing a game of their benefit, like Left alienating itself from Govt.'s failure to reduce prices etc and BJP keeping its option open for future.


----------



## hsr (Jul 9, 2008)

As far as i an concerned the nuclear deal is going to be a big mistake. 123 rule as it is called states that it has the complete right to intervene even  in india's military nuclear affairs. Also they supply 97 tec and they use 08 . It is a pity that we get the leftover. It can be a solution for a moment but will result in a catastrophe. The ones who supported the other will blame it. America is a great a$$hole. That shows the withdrawal of the iran india natural gas deal. This is why i oppose it.


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Jul 9, 2008)

finally someone has done his homework.

AL they want is that India keep informed them their military nuclear projects aka nuke weapons(In short means India should keep their nuke weapon development as minimal levels and no more pokhrans) which IS NOT AT ALL a big deal considering they will be supplying(directly or indirectly) most of our nuclear fuel,so they have every fuking right to know how are we using it(no nuclear fuel-->no nuclear weapons anyways).And why are people so pissed about 'Us can withdraw the deal whenever they want' thing? I have something,I dont want to give\sell it to someone else,Its my fuking decision!.

Think rationally and you will understand,this is not a deal in the right sense but alms given by US just to have a powerful friend in the asian region,heck they are even changing their own laws for this for long term advantages.Mutualism at its best.

why the fuk are left opposing it?well,thats why they are called the opposition.Multiparty system has many flaws and this is one of them(no absolute govt.).I am sure left parties would have went on with the deal had they been in power.All the politics is vote politics in India,termites eating up the inner fabric of India.

On side notesokharn used plutonium which is nowhere near uranium iirc,also called dirty bombs.

North Korea said,very well in advance,that it WILL conduct nuclear test on 8th oct.,2006.Every country cried foul(lame threats like "we will stop our food supplies","no more financial alms","total boycott from international politics").Not surprisingly North Korea shoved the nuclear test up the world's arse right on the date they specified becoming the eighth nation with nuke arsenal.


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 9, 2008)

Needless to say that the Koreans did it using the technology given to them by their commie chinese neighbors.


----------



## narangz (Jul 9, 2008)

_Yes, sign it immediately!_


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

@Devil: I think that clause was cleared out. The weaponry facility and the domestic use facilities have to be kept separate. Not really sure though, but the agreement says that the uranium got under the agreement cannot be used for military purposes.

If we keep US's personal interests aside for a moment 'cause I am not really sure of the intricacies of the deal, India right now is under a lot of restrictions for Uranium trade and use. This deal shall open up those doors as India gets IAEA and other international clearances for Uranium trade and use, which IMO is good.

Secondly, I don't think that any govt. would risk itself for such a non-political issue. The nuclear deal is NOT a vote gainer, people know squat about it. Though I am not a Congress supporter, at the same time, risking the govt. for such an issue seems kinda absurd unless off course the deal is something worth it.


----------



## hsr (Jul 9, 2008)

yes, but if the deal is signed, the got damned americans get to know where all the power is used and for what all. this include 80% of some what military (don't take it literally)


----------



## karnivore (Jul 9, 2008)

IIRC, these are some of the features of the deal:

  > The deal overturns the 30 year old ban by the US. This will facilitate nuclear trade between the two countries.

  > India will now get a continuous, and uninterrupted, supply of nuclear fuel from the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG).

  > India will have to separate its nuclear program for military purpose and civil purpose. India currently has 15 reactors, while 7 are being constructed. Of the 22 reactors, 14 are supposed to be declared as civil. This agreement will not interfere with India’s nuclear program for military purpose.

  > India will retain the right to reprocess the spent fuel, used in civilian reactors. In other words, there is no specific restriction for using the spent fuel, which is generally used for making nuclear bombs. However, this reprocessing shall be in accordance to International Safeguards. [This clause actually irked the Chinese, because they do not have the reprocessing right]

  > India will have to open its civilian reactors (not the military ones), for international inspection.

  > If India detonates another nuclear weapon, the agreement will become void and US will seek the return of the nuclear fuel and technology. But, it will be done at fair market price. Thus, this will not be a financial burden on India. [This is the only major sacrifice that India will have to make]

The deal obviously comes with certain strings attached. For example, India will now have parrot the American line of nuclear NPT, but then again, thats diplomacy. We have already done that with Iran and North Korea. Gone are the bipolar days, when India deluded herself to believe that she was the voice of conscience. 

But people who think that this deal will make us US puppets, are living in the cold war era politics. 

If Indo-US deal is a "non-political" deal, I wonder why the Left have withdrawn support, or why the Congress is running from pillar to post, or why Mulayam and Amar Singh are pissing in public. The deal has reached a stage, where, if India pulls out, it will a huge embarrassment for Indian foreign policy. Not only would India end up with egg on its face, but would look ridiculously immature. Thats why the importance. There is another, more sinister, reason behind this. The BJP, after detonating that nuclear weapon, has patented the howl of "NATIONALISM". If congress can push this deal through, Congress can then claim its stake in this "NATIONALISM" pie. The commies, of course have different equation. Anything that is even remotely connected to the stars and stripes is bad. No, that excludes the American green. US bad, Dollar good. Thats their policy.

True, shooting inflation makes a far better and relevant political agenda. But this is India, _bhailog_. Relevant is irrelevant.


----------



## dreamcatcher (Jul 9, 2008)

^^^yea now we have ask the US even for a nuclear test. If the US approves, only then can we go ahead. We have to keep them informed about the latest in our nuclear devolopments, provide them access to our research labs. Well it will work in our favour too, but knowing the US, they wont disclose half as their total strength to us.


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

karnivore said:


> > If India detonates another nuclear weapon, the agreement will become void and US will seek the return of the nuclear fuel and technology. But, it will be done at fair market price. Thus, this will not be a financial burden on India. [This is the only major sacrifice that India will have to make]


 Does this mean testing of weapons?


karnivore said:


> *If Indo-US deal is a "non-political" deal*, I wonder why the Left have withdrawn support, or why the Congress is running from pillar to post, or why Mulayam and Amar Singh are pissing in public.


Could you tell me how will this deal turn into votes in the next election  Please understand that there is politics of power (forming govt.) then there is the politics for the nation.


----------



## dreamcatcher (Jul 9, 2008)

The Left-gvernment thinks that this is a voice against democracy.According to them, signing this deal lends us into the hand of a different nation which shall affect the country in the long run.Theey are protesting against the interderence of US into indian matters. But without the US, its hard for india to gain forces against the likes of china, who after this deal is surely a threat for india.


----------



## karnivore (Jul 9, 2008)

dreamcatcher said:


> ^^^yea now we have ask the US even for a nuclear test. If the US approves, only then can we go ahead. We have to keep them informed about the latest in our nuclear devolopments, provide them access to our research labs. Well it will work in our favour too, but knowing the US, they wont disclose half as their total strength to us.


No....we are not obligated to share our military research with US. And detonating a nuclear weapon, is not at all a show stopper. What will happen if we detonate. US will take back the nuclear fuel and technology, financially compensating us and we will go back into the same old sanctions. Whats the big deal. We have lived with it, and if necessary we will live it again. But if in the meantime, we can get what we want, whats the harm. [IIRC, we do not need that nuclear bang anytime soon. So there is probably no reason for you to loose sleep on this.]

US can't stop us from our military research. That's the key point. Not what will happen afterward.



iMav said:


> Does this mean testing of weapons?
> Could you tell me how will this deal turn into votes in the next election  Please understand that there is politics of power (forming govt.) then there is the politics for the nation.


Yes it means testing of nuclear weapons. 

I have explained it in my previous post only.


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> The BJP, after detonating that nuclear weapon, has patented the howl of "NATIONALISM". If congress can push this deal through, Congress can then claim its stake in this "NATIONALISM" pie.


Congress does not have much to show for the coming elections in 2009. In the middle of outrageous inflation and rural employment flop show, they have only this "NATIONALISM" drum to beat up. That's why they want it bad. BJP understands this, that's why their opposition, when in fact, it was they, who who kick started it all.

In my experience, general public does not give rat's a** to such international maneuvering. They are mainly concerned with _roti_, _kapda_ and _makan_. A true politician will make them believe that everything else is more important than those. That's why you see religion, caste and all unnecessary issues, become central to campaigns. Sad but true. Elections in India are primarily fought on non-issues.

Mark my word. If this deal actually turns out to be successful, Congress will make it a political issue in the next election. Whether their howl actually converts into votes remains to be seen.

BTW, I fully understand the difference between "politics of power" and "politics for the nation". Unfortunately none is independent of another.


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

You know there is a small something that I don't understand. What is the point of military nuke facilities if weapons cannot be tested


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 9, 2008)

Actually we are among those countries which do not need to do physical explosion tests anymore. We now have enough information and technology enough to run simulated tests!


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2008)

a deal is a deal, either you want it or not, for the sake of formality


----------



## karnivore (Jul 10, 2008)

iMav said:


> You know there is a small something that I don't understand. What is the point of military nuke facilities if weapons cannot be tested


How about reprocessing, spent nuclear fuel for making making high and low yield nuclear bombs. I am sure, you understand, that making a nuclear bomb is not a child's play. Making a low yield nuclear bomb, which can be fired, say for example, from an artillery installation, or even a mortar, is even more difficult, than making a huge high yield bomb. And all of these require extensive research.

You don't always need to detonate nuclear warheads to see if it is working of not. Of course, it helps, but not always necessary. It can be simulated by the supercomputers. Apparently, India do have the capacity to simulate nuclear explosion. [I can't confirm that, though]


----------



## sreevirus (Jul 10, 2008)

With the massive deficiency in electricity production in India, this deal can only be for the better. I, for one, have had it with the constant power outages here in Navi Mumbai.  Imagine a power outage on a hot summer day when you are giving your final year exam in college. It's not amusing.

And I know for a fact how the industries are affected here. The power demand is very large compared to the supply. And besides, with oil prices rising, nuclear power is very viable, and if handled well, is a very clean source of electricity.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2008)

sreevirus said:


> and if handled well, is a very clean source of electricity.


yeah directly or indirectly we are making it dirty here 

India is mere a puppet, we let it waver. US is well known for its Bushism. And for matter Russia and China will not hesitate too.

Though Pakistan will be the Mini Me


----------



## sreevirus (Jul 10, 2008)

T159 said:


> yeah directly or indirectly we are making it dirty here


Waste disposal is a whole different topic yaar. But we have to do what we have to do. Nuclear power is one great option for the development of this country. Machines and lights don't run on bull-power. 



T159 said:


> India is mere a puppet, we let it waver. US is well known for its Bushism. And for matter Russia and China will not hesitate too.


Yeah well, Bush is on his way out.  I'm not saying that there won't be a similar replacement, but then, we know the clauses. Giving access to the reactors for civilian purposes isn't that much an invasion of privacy detrimental to the development of the nation, is it now?


----------



## iMav (Jul 10, 2008)

Guys I don't see this deal's benefits materializing like in a month or two after being signed. Could be wrong though.


----------



## sreevirus (Jul 10, 2008)

^^ You're right. But Rome was not built in a day.


----------



## iMav (Jul 10, 2008)

If India were to build Rome, it would still be 'developing'.


----------



## narangz (Jul 10, 2008)

sreevirus said:


> With the massive deficiency in electricity production in India, this deal can only be for the better. I, for one, have had it with the constant power outages here in Navi Mumbai.  Imagine a power outage on a hot summer day when you are giving your final year exam in college. It's not amusing.
> 
> And I know for a fact how the industries are affected here. The power demand is very large compared to the supply. And besides, with oil prices rising, nuclear power is very viable, and if handled well, is a very clean source of electricity.



You are lucky  People of our State is suffering. We are having power cut from 10.30 AM to 5.00 PM. I just read in newspaper that Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is telling us to get ready for more. There is a huge demand supply gap. They are even buying electricity from other states at exorbitant rates & the board has gone bankrupt.


----------



## karnivore (Jul 11, 2008)

UPDATE:

The full text of Agreement of Safeguards between India and IAEA has been made public. You can see the full text at MEA site. Or download the pdf from here.

Apparently, the full text was leaked on ArmsControlWonk.com, within moments, after it was distributed among the IAEA members. The site presents an American point of view of the agreement. So remember, more they think it "stinks", the better it is for us.


----------



## hsr (Jul 11, 2008)

^^ i was gonna do it... thanks...


----------



## karnivore (Jul 11, 2008)

hari_sanker_r said:


> ^^ i was gonna do it... thanks...


Glad, that I could be of some help...

I just skimmed through the draft agreement, and boy, if it is signed in its current avatar, India stand to loose, practically nothing. (Well, I will give it a thorough reading once I reach home).

I have been to the official commie site, and just look how deluded they are:



> It is clear that the IAEA Safeguards Agreement does not address the fundamental problems in the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement....*India will place its costly imported reactors under perpetual IAEA safeguards *and risk their permanent shutdown in case it fails to toe the US line on foreign policy issues.


And now read from ArmsControlWonk.com



> *The word “perpetuity” appears not once*


Not only does the word "perpetuity" do not appear in the text, it does not even appear by implication as well.




> According to the text of the agreement, India may suspend safeguards on a facility listed in the Annex (case 1) if India and the IAEA “jointly determine that the facility is no longer usable for any nuclear activity relevant from the point of view of safeguards”. As far as I can tell, *the agreement is silent on what happens to safeguards on facilities not in the annex* (case 2) after India removes all safeguarded fuel.


The agreement seems to have been cleverly drafted by the Ministry, but it is more than likely, that the loophole will be plugged in the final draft.

Nevertheless, the agreement seems good, if you take it on face value.


----------



## hsr (Jul 12, 2008)

I also read the aggrement once. Some of my worries are cleared. But still there seems a little mystery. The government has given the whole details of the treaty to the public. I suspect that it can be a blindfold to us. Also why would they do it before anyone ask them?


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 12, 2008)

Actually the details were no secret anytime, though the government chose to not let the details be public untill now.


----------



## W i d e S c r e e N (Jul 13, 2008)

Correct me if am wrong. Dosen't nuclear power constitutes only *13% or less* of total power supply?


----------



## ajaybc (Jul 13, 2008)

The communists here are Chinese traitors.They just do what their Chinese friends instruct them to do.

They were against the idea of independant India while we were fighting for it.They wanted us to be a Chinese or Russian(USSR) colony. 

They were against computers when they were introduced.They said it would make people lose jobs and turn slaves(May be they a lot of terminator,Matrix and irobot movies).They now say that they did a mistake and computer are necessary for todays world.

They are doing the same $hit now with the nuclear deal.They are the real traitors.


*I HATE U COMMIES*


----------



## hullap (Jul 13, 2008)

voted in favour


----------



## narangz (Jul 13, 2008)

Seems pretty clear that we want the deal!


----------



## anispace (Jul 13, 2008)

really glad to know that almost everyone on this forum supports the nuke deal

Now if only the damn commies would put aside their personal distaste for US and take India`s future into consideration.


----------



## Renny (Jul 14, 2008)

^ There's on way the communists will budge, 

India is on the way to develop a Missile Shield, Lockheed Martin(F16 makers) of the USA offered DRDO some help in developing this missile shield,

Here also these communists got all worried about the US "interfering" , 

Remember India's missile shield program is miles ahead of China's, so maybe thats why these communists are frikkin out.


----------



## Aberforth (Jul 14, 2008)

iNFiNiTE said:


> We soo need the deal to ensure energy security for the future. We need power to continue our growth as a developing nation.


The energy derived from nuclear sources in any large country is no more than 4%, evenamong those with advanced nuclear technologies like Russia or US. What makes us think that India's energy would suddenly vanish if India drops the Iran gas pipeline and signs a nuclear deal with US?



iNFiNiTE said:


> As for getting dependent on USA, India is already committed for trade, weapons and other tech stuff with US. So why shy away from the deal which will ultimately help the country?


Actually, India is kind of shied away from US strategic weapons, after US made an offer that it would supply attack fighters to India only if India assured that a US engineers would actively monitor the fighters, once inducted to the IAF. Their claim is quality assurance while India defence analysts feel that it would compromise on India's national security. Hence India dumped the idea of F-16s or F-15s and went for Sukhois, which do not have political baggage.

Trade is fine, so long as it does not hamper our national security. In key national security areas like military and nuclear affairs, we need to exercise caution.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Also its Quid Pro Quo in todays world.


It is difficult to maintain quid pro quo when you are a country with a strong and powerful foreign policy. India hardly fits the list, with its military that is hardly world class and a foreign policy that can't even stop Bangladesh and Nepal from having a go at India. The only countries which can actually demand Quid Pro Quo from US in sensitive areas like nuclear technology are France, Russia and People's Republic of China. 



iMav said:


> The Left does not know all the details.


If it were true then it would be even more of a concern that key leaders in the Indian governments are kept in the dark about a deal that has possible ramnifications in India's military nuclear project. India's nuclear weapons program was an indirect product of international espionage and researches in the civilian nuclear facility at BARC. If these institutions go under the purview of the IAEA, India's nuclear weapons program might go diminished like Brazil. After all, they too signed a nuclear deal with US in the past, only to realise too late that the advantages of nuclear power were overplayed to hasten the 'deal'.



gagandeep said:


> ....we won't even get the electricity which we are getting at the moment because we'll have no uranium for our reactors.......which is again a loss......


Where did you get that one from? About 98% of the electricity in India comes from hydro or thermal power stations. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> BTW we already have nuclear reactors running, dont we?


We do but they are located in areas that are either far from civilian inhabitation or in sparsely populated areas. The fallback from an accident would not be as devastating if a nuclear reactor were to disintegrate in, say...Mumbai or Nagpur.



iNFiNiTE said:


> If the attacking country's intention is to start a nuclear war, it will simply nuke us and not bother attacking the reactors.


It is easier to claim accident by attacking or sabotaging a nuclear reaction in a populated area rather than directly attacking with nuclear warheads. Somewhere along the lines of Bhopal Gas Tragedy...



mayanks_098 said:


> +1 in favour
> ....hon Mr APJ Abdul Kalaam? (& other scientists)


Dr. Kalam never made a tactit support of the Indo-US nuclear deal. His said that he will take into consideration the stiff opposition from both senior and retired BARC scientists who felt the nuclear deal would threaten India's military nuclear capability. The SP leader Amar Singh, overplayed that reassurance with a "Kalam said nuclear deal is beneficial". In politics and religion, one always has to read between the words to avoid being taken for a ride.

I would like India to sign the deal only after ensuring that none of Indian military interests are threatened. So far, from what has been released of the 1-2-3 Pact, we see that the deal subtly hints that it India should not test nuclear weapons. That, in my opinion is unacceptable, considering that without real world testing, we can't have a credible nuclear deterrance against China or Pakistan. The issue at hand is no only about the seperation of civlian and military nuclear facilities, but India's ability to conduct further nuclear tests as well. We should put our own demands, be firm and if they are not ready to accept, we reject the deal.

The Pokhran nuclear devices were ready by 1995 but we didn't test them because the then Congress goverment was afraid of displeasing the United States. Most people in India barely understand nuclear politics or foreign policy; this makes them easy victims to government propaganda which gains them a blind support of the deal. If our politicians were such good strategists, we wouldn't have been left behind as one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world while countries like China, Malaysia, etc. flew past us. The economic policies of our politicans and bureaucrats are one of the reasons why 70% of Indians still live under the UN definition of poverty line. Our foreign policy makers care more about appeasing 'the west' rather than helping Indian's get ahead, which is why we take no proactive actions when Indians are harassed in countries like Malaysia, United States or the Gulf.


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 14, 2008)

Aberforth said:


> The energy derived from nuclear sources in any large country is no more than 4%, evenamong those with advanced nuclear technologies like Russia or US. What makes us think that India's energy would suddenly vanish if India drops the Iran gas pipeline and signs a nuclear deal with US?



_The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19%[4] of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—78% as of 2006.[5] In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity.[6] Nuclear energy policy differs between European Union countries, and some, such as Austria and Ireland, have no active nuclear power stations. In comparison, France has a large number of these plants, with 16 multi-unit stations in current use._
Source: wikipedia



> Actually, India is kind of shied away from US strategic weapons, after US made an offer that it would supply attack fighters to India only if India assured that a US engineers would actively monitor the fighters, once inducted to the IAF. Their claim is quality assurance while India defence analysts feel that it would compromise on India's national security. Hence India dumped the idea of F-16s or F-15s and went for Sukhois, which do not have political baggage.



IIRC, we have two US fighter jets as contenders for the latest 126 MRCA deal.



> We do but they are located in areas that are either far from civilian inhabitation or in sparsely populated areas. The fallback from an accident would not be as devastating if a nuclear reactor were to disintegrate in, say...Mumbai or Nagpur.
> It is easier to claim accident by attacking or sabotaging a nuclear reaction in a populated area rather than directly attacking with nuclear warheads. Somewhere along the lines of Bhopal Gas Tragedy...



I think Nuclear power plants are built away from populated cities.  Gee, you think the newer plants would be built in the middle of metros or such cities?

Also terrorists bomb local trains and market places as well. Should we stop going out from our homes? Security of the plants is an altogether different matter. Same goes for our nuclear arsenal which you point out in the post for effective deterrance. Just coz they can be stolen, should we dispose them ASAP?



> Dr. Kalam never made a tactit support of the Indo-US nuclear deal. His said that he will take into consideration the stiff opposition from both senior and retired BARC scientists who felt the nuclear deal would threaten India's military nuclear capability.



"We need a steady supply of uranium till we build thorium reactors. The proposed civilian nuclear deal with the US will help us," Kalam said on the sidelines of an aerospace technologies summit.
Source



> I would like India to sign the deal only after ensuring that none of Indian military interests are threatened. So far, from what has been released of the 1-2-3 Pact, we see that the deal subtly hints that it India should not test nuclear weapons. That, in my opinion is unacceptable, considering that without real world testing, we can't have a credible nuclear deterrance against China or Pakistan. The issue at hand is no only about the seperation of civlian and military nuclear facilities, but India's ability to conduct further nuclear tests as well. We should put our own demands, be firm and if they are not ready to accept, we reject the deal.



So its better that India should keep all those already produced nuclear warheads ready just in case, and let its citizens live in electricity shortage in coming years. And also conduct as many tests as it wants  since without the deal, no country (read US, China etc) is going to oppose anyway or impose further restrictions. Right?


----------



## Aberforth (Jul 15, 2008)

iNFiNiTE said:


> _The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19%[4] of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—78% as of 2006...._


_
Electricity is just a part of energy available to us for consumption, not all of it. Unless we gain the technological prowness to completely electricfy cars, buses, planes and heavy industries, nuclear fuel will be limited to a maximum of 4% of a nation's energy needs. That is, until tabletop nuclear reactors become a reality, which isn't anytime soon.



iNFiNiTE said:



			IIRC, we have two US fighter jets as contenders for the latest 126 MRCA deal.
		
Click to expand...

The deal is for MRCA fighters, not attack fighters. India has already concluded the deal for attack fighters in 1996 with the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI jets, which gradually replace the older Mig-29s. The MRCA deal is for multi-role aircrafts to replace the Mig-21s and Mirage 2000s.



iNFiNiTE said:



			I think Nuclear power plants are built away from populated cities.  Gee, you think the newer plants would be built in the middle of metros or such cities?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't think so and I believe it is quite silly of someone to suggest that nuclear weapons be built close to metros. However, unlike conventional bombs, a nuclear meltdown, even if far from a city, can have disastrous consequences.



iNFiNiTE said:



			Also terrorists bomb local trains and market places as well. Should we stop going out from our homes? Security of the plants is an altogether different matter. Same goes for our nuclear arsenal which you point out in the post for effective deterrance. Just coz they can be stolen, should we dispose them ASAP?
		
Click to expand...

A nuclear meltdown is a lot more serious than a few people getting blow up by terrorists. I take it that you are not very aware of the Chernobyl disaster.



iNFiNiTE said:



			So its better that India should keep all those already produced nuclear warheads ready just in case, and let its citizens live in electricity shortage in coming years.
		
Click to expand...

India should maintain and upgrade its nuclear arsenal to ensure a credible nuclear deterrance against countries like China and Pakistan. Electricity shortage can be overcome even without nuclear fuels, only if there is a political will to do so. In any case, we cannot compromise our national security for more electricity.



iNFiNiTE said:



			And also conduct as many tests as it wants  since without the deal, no country (read US, China etc) is going to oppose anyway or impose further restrictions. Right?
		
Click to expand...

Anytime a country outside the UNSC members conduct a nuclear test, they will face stiff political opposition. However, there is little they could do about it, unless they have a carrot that they can snatch from you. If India signs the nuclear deal, it should put forth in the agenda that India reserves the right to test or develop its strategic nuclear arsenal at its discredit. If that is agreed upon by US, I am all for the deal. Not otherwise.



iNFiNiTE said:



The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19%[4] of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—78% as of 2006....

Click to expand...


Electricity is just a part of energy available to us for consumption, not all of it. Unless we gain the technological prowness to completely electricfy cars, buses, planes and heavy industries, nuclear fuel will be limited to a maximum of 4% of a nation's energy needs. That is, until tabletop nuclear reactors become a reality, which isn't anytime soon.



iNFiNiTE said:



			IIRC, we have two US fighter jets as contenders for the latest 126 MRCA deal.
		
Click to expand...

The deal is for MRCA fighters, not attack fighters. India has already concluded the deal for attack fighters in 1996 with the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI jets, which gradually replace the older Mig-29s. The MRCA deal is for multi-role aircrafts to replace the Mig-21s and Mirage 2000s.



iNFiNiTE said:



			I think Nuclear power plants are built away from populated cities.  Gee, you think the newer plants would be built in the middle of metros or such cities?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't think so and I believe it is quite silly of someone to suggest that nuclear weapons be built close to metros. However, unlike conventional bombs, a nuclear meltdown, even if far from a city, can have disastrous consequences.



iNFiNiTE said:



			Also terrorists bomb local trains and market places as well. Should we stop going out from our homes? Security of the plants is an altogether different matter. Same goes for our nuclear arsenal which you point out in the post for effective deterrance. Just coz they can be stolen, should we dispose them ASAP?
		
Click to expand...

A nuclear meltdown is a lot more serious than a few people getting blow up by terrorists. I take it that you are not very aware of the Chernobyl disaster. Sabotaging a nuclear reactor is not a matter of cycling up to a power station and stapping a bomb.



iNFiNiTE said:



			So its better that India should keep all those already produced nuclear warheads ready just in case, and let its citizens live in electricity shortage in coming years.
		
Click to expand...

India should maintain and upgrade its nuclear arsenal to ensure a credible nuclear deterrance against countries like China and Pakistan. Electricity shortage can be overcome even without nuclear fuels, only if there is a political will to do so. In any case, we cannot compromise our national security for more electricity.



iNFiNiTE said:



			And also conduct as many tests as it wants  since without the deal, no country (read US, China etc) is going to oppose anyway or impose further restrictions. Right?
		
Click to expand...

Anytime a country outside the UNSC members conduct a nuclear test, they will face stiff political opposition. However, there is little they could do about it, unless they have a carrot that they can snatch from you. If India signs the nuclear deal, it should put forth in the agenda that India reserves the right to test or develop its strategic nuclear arsenal at its discredit. If that is agreed upon by US, I am all for the deal. Not otherwise._


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 15, 2008)

^^ Whats with the double post?



Aberforth said:


> Electricity is just a part of energy available to us for consumption, not all of it. Unless we gain the technological prowness to completely electricfy cars, buses, planes and heavy industries, nuclear fuel will be limited to a maximum of 4% of a nation's energy needs. That is, until tabletop nuclear reactors become a reality, which isn't anytime soon.


Living in a world where everything runs on electricity? Now thats something ambitious, very very ambitious. Lets first focus on getting electricity for our day to day consumption, shall we?




> The deal is for MRCA fighters, not attack fighters. India has already concluded the deal for attack fighters in 1996 with the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI jets, which gradually replace the older Mig-29s. The MRCA deal is for multi-role aircrafts to replace the Mig-21s and Mirage 2000s.


I don't know what are you talking about. Whats the difference between MRCA fighters and attack fighters? Last I heard, MRCA is for Multi Role Combat Aircraft one of which of its abilities is to function as an attack fighter too. And moreover, two US planes are very much in race for the bid.




> No I don't think so and I believe it is quite silly of someone to suggest that nuclear weapons be built close to metros. However, unlike conventional bombs, a nuclear meltdown, even if far from a city, can have disastrous consequences.


Who is talking about building nuclear weapons close to cities? Read the post carefully please. 



> A nuclear meltdown is a lot more serious than a few people getting blow up by terrorists. I take it that you are not very aware of the Chernobyl disaster.


Oh I am very much aware about the incident. Some of the reasons were faulty design and minor carelessness of its workers on the day of the incident.
But shouldnt that be reason enough for us to build better reactors with effective security provided too?
 I was merely pointing out that going with your reasoning, we should dispose all nuclear weapons too as they are also vulnerable to being stolen terrorists just like you said nuclear reactors would be to vulnerable to sabotage etc.



> India should maintain and upgrade its nuclear arsenal to ensure a credible nuclear deterrance against countries like China and Pakistan. Electricity shortage can be overcome even without nuclear fuels, only if there is a political will to do so. In any case, we cannot compromise our national security for more electricity.



Doesn't India already has enough nukes to ensure an effective deterrance. Even Hydrogen bombs were tested last time successfully. We dont need to conduct a test with every second bomb, just to keep sure that we have reliable nukes. We already have data from the last two tests, which can be used to simulate further tests.
And its not as if after signing the deal, Our country will handover all the nukes to US.

Also your last line reminds me of Pakistans once famous quote: "Ghass khayenge par bum banayenge" {We shall survive on grass but will definitely make a bomb(nuke)}



> Anytime a country outside the UNSC members conduct a nuclear test, they will face stiff political opposition. However, there is little they could do about it, unless they have a carrot that they can snatch from you. If India signs the nuclear deal, it should put forth in the agenda that India reserves the right to test or develop its strategic nuclear arsenal at its discredit. If that is agreed upon by US, I am all for the deal. Not otherwise.


It's already been stated that India is free to develop its weapons programme according to its wishes, provided it doesnt use the fuel supplied for civilian usage for military purposes i.e. making nukes.

And moreover, Right now we dont have ANY deal. So in future if we wish to conduct tests, the deal would be off. But untill then isnt it logical to gain something from the deal?


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 15, 2008)

> *India should maintain and upgrade its nuclear arsenal to ensure a credible nuclear deterrance against countries like China and Pakistan. Electricity shortage can be overcome even without nuclear fuels, only if there is a political will to do so. In any case, we cannot compromise our national security for more electricity.*



And what are the technologies which _political will_ can help deploying. Please both solar cells and windmills are not offering any fuel efficiency. Plus in India where are you going to have that much space to generate enough energy. And do not even tell me about hydro power thing! Where are you gonnna build damns in Rajasthan!
As of now nuc energy is the only viable alternative to coal and other electricity generation sources. 

Talking about political will, if you plan on making politicians do manual labor on king size dynamos for electricity generation, I am all for the plan. Take it from me, a majority of our politicians deserve just that.


----------



## Aberforth (Jul 15, 2008)

iNFiNiTE said:


> Living in a world where everything runs on electricity? Now thats something ambitious, very very ambitious.


Yes, which is why I think that your assumption that electricity statistics represent total energy statistics is a faulty one. In the US, 17% of electricity comes from nuclear energy, not 17% of energy itself. No country has yet been able to meet any more than 3-4% of its energy needs from nuclear fuels, despite their best efforts. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> I don't know what are you talking about. Whats the difference between MRCA fighters and attack fighters? Last I heard, MRCA is for Multi Role Combat Aircraft one of which of its abilities is to function as an attack fighter too. And moreover, two US planes are very much in race for the bid.


I cannot help that you are unable to distinguish between attack fighters and MRCA fighters. I'll make it as brief and simple an explanation as possible so that you can understand it, despite your limited konowledge of military aviation. 

Attack fighters are those fighter aircrafts that form the core of a modern air force, with the primary purpose of maintaining air superiority. They are optimised for offensive air-to-air combat with enhanced BVR capabilities, very high agility, better stealth and survivability. MRCA aircrafts, on the other hand are general purpose combat aircrafts which can conduct reconaissance, ground attacks and defensive air-to-air combat. In a modern air force, attack and multi-role fighters serve as different a role as interstate buses and city buses. Both can carry passengers, but for different pusposes in a different way. Some smaller countries like Pakistan use MRCAs as attack fighters, much like tiny countries where city buses also serve as nationwide transport.

The two US fighters for the MRCA deal are F/A-18 and F-16. The former is a naval MRCA while the latter is a ground support multi-role jet. None of them are in the same league as Su-30 MKI, which is more in line with McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. As of now, the US does not sell F-15s to any country without a lot of pre-conditions.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Who is talking about building nuclear weapons close to cities? Read the post carefully please.


If you took care to read your own posts, it might have helped you to notice that you brought up the idea of building nuclear reactors close to cities. You tried to pin it down on me as if it was my suggestion while at the same time, quoting a post where I clarify that nuclear reactors are built far from inhabited areas. It couldn't have been more ironic.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Oh I am very much aware about the incident. Some of the reasons were faulty design and minor carelessness of its workers on the day of the incident.


The Chernobyl disaster is neither because of faulty design or minor carelessness. It was because of gross and deliberate neglect of safety measures by the director, Dr. Victor Burkanov and his team. Under pressure from senior scientists, he authorised a power backup testing at a critical time when the nuclear reactor core was in its second fuel cycle. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> But shouldnt that be reason enough for us to build better reactors with effective security provided too?


We could build the best security and yet you cannot contain the ingenuinity of a criminal mind or enemy saboteur. India's most elite special forces, the NSG could not stop the leakage of 8 kg uranium from BARC or storm the hijacked IC-814 in Amritsar. Our security agencies are yet to find any of the terrorists involved in the Jaipur, Delhi or Mumbai blasts. Even if we have a good reason to do something, somehow we never manage to do it. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> I was merely pointing out that going with your reasoning, we should dispose all nuclear weapons too as they are also vulnerable to being stolen terrorists just like you said nuclear reactors would be to vulnerable to sabotage etc.


Not really. Nuclear weapons are generally housed in classified military facilities whose locations are known only to those with executive and top level military clearances. Moreover, to prevent a rougue officer from launching nukes on impulse, there are several fail-safe interlocks protected by encrypted launch codes. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> Doesn't India already has enough nukes to ensure an effective deterrance.


Not really. India is yet to miniaturise nuclear warheads to fit the Agni IRBMs. Miniaturing a low yield nuclear warhead with an 80% success rate is like an infantryman trying to fight as a sniper. Without training, you can never ensure battle worthiness.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Even Hydrogen bombs were tested last time successfully.


India did not test any successful hydrogen bombs. The Shakti-1 was a multi staged fission test so that research and futher tests can be conducted to build a successful hydrogen bomb. Its yield was 48 KT compared to the first Chinese H-bomb test that yielded 3500 KT. The Shakti-1 device weighing over 1000 kilos, yielded as much as a handheld Russian suitcase nuke  or an American Davy Crockett rifle charge could.



iNFiNiTE said:


> We dont need to conduct a test with every second bomb, just to keep sure that we have reliable nukes. We already have data from the last two tests, which can be used to simulate further tests.


No, the data gathered from five successful and one failed test is too small to simulate the effect of real world nuclear weapons. Nuclear triad countries like US and Russia conducted thousands of nuclear tests to ensure enough data for credible simulation. Trying to simulate nuclear tests after five real detonations is like trying to hack CIA databank right after learning the basics of C++. You can do that, but you are unlikely to have any success in it.



iNFiNiTE said:


> And its not as if after signing the deal, Our country will handover all the nukes to US.


If we sign the deal without making our terms, our country might as good as be a non-nuclear country. We haven't yet managed to build credible strategic nuclear warheads, hence our arsenal will deteriorate because of impractibility.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Also your last line reminds me of Pakistans once famous quote: "Ghass khayenge par bum banayenge" {We shall survive on grass but will definitely make a bomb(nuke)}


They did, didn't they? If we took their statement as a rhetoric and did not act, we'd have been sitting ducks while Pakistan went from a military underdog to a nuclear power. The dogged determinaton of Pakistanis to go nuclear ensured that they could save their dirty skin from what India would have inflicted them after 11 December Parliament attacks. And as a country riding on a 21 billion dollar military budget, we won't really have to eat grass to build nukes like Pakistanis. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> It's already been stated that India is free to develop its weapons programme according to its wishes, provided it doesnt use the fuel supplied for civilian usage for military purposes i.e. making nukes.


I have read the basic points of 1-2-3 Pact several times and I am yet to find any written agreement that India can test nuclear warheads without compromising the deal. Assurances without paper deal mind find us in the same position as Russia. The US went back on its verbal promise to Russia to withdraw NATO troops from Eastern Europe. Boris Yelstin was much like our present PM, with a blind faith on Americans over any regard for national security.



iNFiNiTE said:


> And moreover, Right now we dont have ANY deal. So in future if we wish to conduct tests, the deal would be off. But untill then isnt it logical to gain something from the deal?


It is quite clear that you see only two choices, "Yes Deal" or "No Deal". In reality we can have a third choice, a nuclear deal with a tactic paper agreement that we can test and develop our military nuclear capability at our own discretion. If we sign the deal without this point, our politicians would keep halting nuclear tests to gain more favours from US, like PV Narashima Rao did in 1996 by suspending the Pokhran tests.


----------



## red_devil (Jul 15, 2008)

how could I have missed this topic !!!

Voted for the deal..


Those Left idiots say they dont want US to intervene in our country / whatever... they just boil over when the word US is uttered !! $hIT guys that they are 

They dont want US help ... and thus they oppose the deal... FINE.

Then they should also oppose _

1> almost all the BPOs in India { coz most of them rely on US for work }

2> all the IT companies { they either get contracts from US or many are US based companies } 

3> most of our tech know-how ---as it is from US... 

4> the money that the Indians working in the US bring/send to India.


and many more...



but will they ever do that ?? NO . those F...ing blind folded Leftists !!


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 15, 2008)

Aberforth said:


> The two US fighters for the MRCA deal are F/A-18 and F-16. The former is a naval MRCA while the latter is a ground support multi-role jet. None of them are in the same league as Su-30 MKI, which is more in line with McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. As of now, the US does not sell F-15s to any country without a lot of pre-conditions.



Comparing Su-30MKI and F-15s to MRCAs? You got to be kidding me..



> The Chernobyl disaster is neither because of faulty design or minor carelessness. It was because of gross and deliberate neglect of safety measures by the director, Dr. Victor Burkanov and his team. Under pressure from senior scientists, he authorised a power backup testing at a critical time when the nuclear reactor core was in its second fuel cycle.


Ok, My bad.
Though one of the reasons was that the operators didn't knew what the test was about. Also the operator in control of the reactor operation was inexperienced.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> If you took care to read your own posts, it might have helped you to notice that you brought up the idea of building nuclear reactors close to cities. You tried to pin it down on me as if it was my suggestion while at the same time, quoting a post where I clarify that nuclear reactors are built far from inhabited areas. It couldn't have been more ironic.





			
				iNFiNiTE said:
			
		

> I think Nuclear power plants are built away from populated cities. Gee, you think the newer plants would be built in the middle of metros or such cities?


Read again will you? I hope you know about sarcasm


----------



## afonofa (Jul 15, 2008)

hari_sanker_r said:


> Also they supply 97 tec and they use 08 . It is a pity that we get the leftover.


We are not going to get leftovers. The deal with the US is only opening the doors for India to international nuclear trade and commerce. The US hasn't built a single nuclear reactor in 30 years. They maybe the best at making WMD's(weapons of mass destruction) but when it comes to peaceful use of nuclear energy, the US has lost its edge to countries like France and Japan. France and Russia have already said, they are more than willing to enter into nuclear trade with India but only after the Indo-US deal. Why? To put it plainly, because the US is the biggest kid(bully) in the international playground.



The_Devil_Himself said:


> And why are people so pissed about 'Us can withdraw the deal whenever they want' thing? I have something,I dont want to give\sell it to someone else,Its my fuking decision!.
> 
> On side notes: pokharn used plutonium which is nowhere near uranium iirc,also called dirty bombs.
> 
> North Korea said,very well in advance,that it WILL conduct nuclear test on 8th oct.,2006.Not surprisingly North Korea shoved the nuclear test up the world's arse right on the date they specified becoming the eighth nation with nuke arsenal.


If it's really so that the US can withdraw the deal anytime it wants, then I think a lot of the deal's supporters(including me) would have second thoughts about supporting the N-deal. I think its more likely that the US can withdraw from the deal if India conducts a nuclear test. Think about it, if you are giving/selling something to someone and you say _"I'll take it back whenever I feel like, whether or not you are using it."_ That would be completely unfair to the person you are giving/selling it to.

India did not test dirty bombs in pokhran. *Dirty bombs are different.*
 Dirty bombs are supposed to release, with conventional explosives, radioactivity which kill/poison living beings. We would have absolutely no deterrent against a nuclear adversary with dirty bombs in our arsenal!

Note: Though Israel doesn't confirm or deny it, but they are widely believed to have nuclear weapons. So with India, Pakistan and North Korea, that makes *9 countries with nukes.*



karnivore said:


> Mark my word. If this deal actually turns out to be successful, Congress will make it a political issue in the next election. Whether their howl actually converts into votes remains to be seen.


Nice. The very next day after you posted, it was in the newspaper that this is exactly what the Congress intends to do. Are you a member of the Congress? Sonia Gandhi toh nahi na? 



iMav said:


> Guys I don't see this deal's benefits materializing like in a month or two after being signed. Could be wrong though.


You are absolutely correct. This is India, a broadband connection takes anywhere from 6 months to 3 years to materialize! 



karnivore said:


> UPDATE:
> The full text of Agreement of Safeguards between India and IAEA has been made public. You can see the full text at MEA site. Or download the pdf from here.


Thanks for the link. 



ajaybc said:


> They were against the idea of independant India while we were fighting for it.They wanted us to be a Chinese or Russian(USSR) colony.


If thats true, then its just shocking and shameful to know. Imagine all the people who gave their lives and made innumerable sacrifices during India's freedom struggle...only to be a Chinese or Russian colony? *NEVER!*


anispace said:


> really glad to know that almost everyone on this forum supports the nuke deal


On almost any forum and in every poll, the majority of Indians are *for* the N-deal. Infact India is one of the few countries where the public still has a favorable opinion of the US. Though personally I think the US has long lost the moral high ground that it could claim after WWII. 



~Rahul~ said:


> India is on the way to develop a Missile Shield, Lockheed Martin(F16 makers) of the USA offered DRDO some help in developing this missile shield,
> 
> Here also these communists got all worried about the US "interfering" ,
> 
> Remember India's missile shield program is miles ahead of China's, so maybe thats why these communists are frikkin out.


Why dont' the Left oppose ISRO's plan to launch Chandrayaan-1 with a payload onboard for NASA...aren't they worried that NASA would sabotage Chandrayaan-1
It would be great if India's missile shield program was indeed ahead of China's but, considering that China is a few steps ahead of us(w.r.t military tech), its hard to believe or maybe the Indo-Israeli military cooperation is paying off.



Aberforth said:


> What makes us think that India's energy would suddenly vanish if India drops the Iran gas pipeline and signs a nuclear deal with US?
> 
> If it were true then it would be even more of a concern that key leaders in the Indian governments are kept in the dark about a deal that has possible ramnifications in India's military nuclear project.
> 
> ...


The pipeline from Iran will be passing through Pakistan. Should we entrust a pipeline passing through Pakistan with ensuring part of India's energy needs over a N-deal with the US? If the US says it can ensure the supply of nuclear fuel(provided conditions are met) then I believe that the US has the capability to keep their end of the deal, whether they do or not is another matter. But if Pakistan says it will ensure security to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline within its borders, then I wouldn't bet _*ek naya paisa*_ on that claim.

The reason the Left were kept out of the loop is because they would have opposed the deal with or without knowing the details and made it even harder for the govt. to get the deal to its current status. Thats what I think. SkG(Sonia karnivore Gandhi) may be able to enlighten us further on the intricacies of this. 

So currently if we are generating 98% of our electricity from thermal and hydro power, does that mean we should continue to do so in the future? Considering the ecological impact of burning fossil fuels is unravelling at the North and South pole where the polar ice caps are in danger of melting away completely. Forget the polar ice, even the seasons every year are changing their usual pattern with unbearable summers and winters, or am I the only one who thinks this is happening? How long are we going to depend on fossil fuels? They are non-renewable sources of energy and will dry up sooner than we think. I agree that it requires political will, not to mention huge amounts of money to even start the transition from non-renewable to renewable energy but with the current level of technological advancement what should we do for renewable energy, seed the entire land available to us with solar panels and windmills?? True that nuclear energy isn't renewable, but it requires lesser land to generate the same amount of power as thermal power plants and once we have exhausted nuclear resources on earth, we stand a better chance of finding new sources for nuclear energy than for fossil fuels, beyond our planet.

The deal does not explicitly prohibit India from conducting a nuclear test. That in my opinion is more important than a subtle hint to the contrary.

Lets consider dropping the N-deal w.r.t our nuclear deterrent against China & Pakistan:

1. China has a no-first-use policy regarding a nuclear strike and so does India. Both the countries (will)have sensible governments who may not see eye to eye on many issues but they do realise the inevitable and futile result of a nuclear war. The possibility of any conflict between India and China escalating into a nuclear war is thus very remote. With all the current level of deterrent that we have vis-a-vis China, it hasn't stopped them from _"fingering"_ us, as and when they want on border issues such as Sikkim and Arunachal. We could drop the N-deal, buildup a 10:1 nuke deterrent in our favour and it will have no effect on China's attitude towards us.

2. Pakistan to date hasn't agreed to a no-first use policy on its nukes. Infact Pakistan's policy has always been _"Anybody attacks us and we launch our missiles at India"_. In any conventional war with Pakistan, when they feel they are losing, the fact that we have a bigger nuke arsenal which will annihalate them in retaliation, will make no difference to their decision to nuke us first. And no deterrent is going to be enough for terrorists who, considering the current state of affairs in Pakistan, may even get their hands on one of their nukes.

I'm all for having a credible nuclear deterrent but I don't see the point of foregoing this N-deal because it might affect our nuclear deterrent. On the contrary US analysts are worried that this deal will help India further its nuclear weapons programme by allowing India access to foreign nuclear fuel which effectively means that our resources can be used for building nukes, if we want to. Its the reason Pakistan has been crying itself hoarse to get a similar N-deal from the US. 

One just has to look at India's stand at WTO meets and comments by Commerce & Industry minister, Mr. Kamal Nath to know that appeasing the west isn't exactly top priority for them. At the beginning of the N-deal negotiations, the US wanted to place all of India's nuclear facilities under safeguards but our negotiators stood firm and were not ready to accept. They(we) were prepared to walk out of negotiations(lots of practice in the parliament  ) Due to President Bush's insistence the Americans persisted and our negotiators came up with classifying our nuclear facilities into civil and military and placing only the former under safeguards.



Aberforth said:


> Unless we gain the technological prowness to completely electricfy cars, buses, planes and heavy industries, nuclear fuel will be limited to a maximum of 4% of a nation's energy needs.
> 
> In any case, we cannot compromise our national security for more electricity.
> 
> Anytime a country outside the UNSC members conduct a nuclear test, they will face stiff political opposition. However, there is little they could do about it, unless they have a carrot that they can snatch from you.


It has always been that first we find the fuel and then develop the technology to harness that fuel, not the other way round. Looking at the development of hybrid and electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell technology, a world, in our lifetimes, where everything from cars and buses to heavy industries run on electricity isn't that hard to imagine. 

Necessity is the mother of invention, invention is not the father of necessity! 

When we have our own people rioting due to a lack of electricity, it wouldn't require an outsider to compromise our national security.

A country outside the UNSC members, conducting a nuclear test faces more than just stiff political opposition. The effects of international economic sanctions on North Korea's nuclear weapons programme has been its eventual decline. Whatever India's current economic status maybe, international sanctions will hit us hard and India Shining will lose its sheen.

The last nuclear test by India was in 1998 and since then we haven't conducted any new test. If nuclear testing is important for the development of India's nuclear deterrent, does it mean India's nuclear deterrent is stagnating for the last 10years? If it is so then why isn't the Left more worried about that and starts pressurising the govt. to conduct further tests?


iNFiNiTE said:


> Also your last line reminds me of Pakistans once famous quote: "Ghass khayenge par bum banayenge" {We shall survive on grass but will definitely make a bomb(nuke)}


*ROTFLMAO!!*


----------



## hsr (Jul 15, 2008)

So the final result is...?
I agree with the agrement partially. And is leaving the thoughts to ECO_POLITICIANS and geeks.... Goodbye world.....


----------



## karnivore (Jul 15, 2008)

afonofa said:
			
		

> Nice. The very next day after you posted, it was in the newspaper that this is exactly what the Congress intends to do. Are you a member of the Congress? Sonia Gandhi toh nahi na?


eh he he he........Experience  I am apolitical. Neither Congress, nor BJP, nor Commie.


			
				afonofa said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link.


Pleasure's all mine.


			
				afonofa said:
			
		

> The reason the Left were kept out of the loop is because they would have opposed the deal with or without knowing the details and made it even harder for the govt. to get the deal to its current status. Thats what I think. SkG(Sonia karnivore Gandhi) may be able to enlighten us further on the intricacies of this.


You are correct my friend.

But.....Sonia "karnivore" Gandhi......


----------



## mediator (Jul 15, 2008)

afonofa said:
			
		

> I agree that it requires political will, not to mention huge amounts of money to even start the transition from non-renewable to renewable energy *but with the current level of technological advancement what should we do for renewable energy, seed the entire land available to us with solar panels and windmills?? True that nuclear energy isn't renewable, but it requires lesser land to generate the same amount of power as thermal power plants and once we have exhausted nuclear resources on earth, we stand a better chance of finding new sources for nuclear energy than for fossil fuels, beyond our planet.*


Aren't you underestimating the geographical diversity of INDIA? We got mountains, perennial rivers in plenty, vast lands where winds flow, quantity of biomass, surrounding water bodies on 3 sides of INDIA & a huge desert to feed us dessert. A major problem with nuclear fuels is the disposal of nuclear waste.

I think money is no problem if the quantity vanished in corruption is recovered!


----------



## Aberforth (Jul 16, 2008)

iNFiNiTE said:


> Comparing Su-30MKI and F-15s to MRCAs? You got to be kidding me..


It was you who was couldn't make the distinction, so I had to put a comparison so that you have an idea why MRCAs are a different deal from attack jets. Now with a realistic example, you get the picture how funny its sounds to compare MRCAs with air superiority attack fighters. The Su-30 MKI was the best deal, we could produce our own at HAL as per the license agreement with Sukhoi industries and the there is no conditions to 'monitor' anything.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Should we entrust a pipeline passing through Pakistan with ensuring part of India's energy needs over a N-deal with the US?


If we take that stance we can't trust US with our nuclear security either. Should we entrust the country that is the biggest funder of Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies, with our energy safety that is indirectly linked to our nuclear capabilities? Pakistan is a nuclear country primarily with US help and last time I checked $5 billion went as US aid to Pakistan military on June, 2008. 

It looks like, as Indians, we are sitting ducks, without the guts to get the US or any developed country to brand Pakistan as terrorist factory. We are practising Gandhigiri (read gutlessness) while the US sows the seeds in our neighbouring enemy that will poison our people in the days and years to come.



iNFiNiTE said:


> The deal does not explicitly prohibit India from conducting a nuclear test.


The deal does not explicitly prohibit India from conducting tests but it creates a political pressure that makes India a de-facto member of the NPT and a de-facto signatory of the CTBT. NPT may be acceptable considering India in itself continues to follow a similar policy, but CTBT is completely unacceptable, not yet at this stage. Do you think our future Congress Prime Ministers would give a go ahead for a nuclear test if they feel it risks the Nuclear Deal? Seeing that happened with the Rao government after the 1996 Pokhran plan, I think not.

The effect of a nuclear weapons buildup is not military, but political. Granted, both India and China know that a nuclear war will destroy each other. However if China has doubts over India's capability to warhead its nuclear missiles or its nuclear missiles to hit population targets in China, it might not be so demotivated to 'test the waters' with small acts of agression, like what it is doing in Arunachal. If China had 20 KT nukes and missiles today, that fly 5000 kms, it couldn't have ensured the deterrance against USA that it enjoys now. 

As for Pakistan's rhetoric, although it is a serious consideration, the likeliness of any Pakistan administration to use nukes over getting attacked is unlikely, till their entire country is over-run by enemy troops. They have been making war cries like these for years, as a scare tactic. The General of Pakistan Army, Abdullah Khan Niazi cried that Bangladesh would be freed over his dead body, and it was quite amusing to see him sign the surrender which concluded the War of 1971. So much for rhetoric.



iNFiNiTE said:


> When we have our own people rioting due to a lack of electricity, it wouldn't require an outsider to compromise our national security.


The production costs of nuclear averages at Rs.6-7/unit. Will the rioting population pay Rs.7/- for electricity when they realise people in other parts of the country pay Rs.3-4/- for hydel/thermal power? We might see more riots from people who demand cheaper power.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Whatever India's current economic status maybe, international sanctions will hit us hard and India Shining will lose its sheen.


Not really. US or any Anglo-Saxon countries can't afford to pass economic sanctions against India, unlike North Korea or Iran. US economy is too integrated with India for that and they wouldn't risk a recession of their own economy for a politico-military ideology. We have seen that happen after the 1998 tests, when US realised that their sanctions were hurting them more than they hurt us. Finally we hade the US President Bill Clinton personally come down to India within a year, to make amends.



iNFiNiTE said:


> If nuclear testing is important for the development of India's nuclear deterrent, does it mean India's nuclear deterrent is stagnating for the last 10years?


Again, the reasons are political. If we have BJP in power, Agni-3 would have been deployed and we would already have fitted nuclear warheads in our missiles. The BJP could have ensured better success by pursuing policies that are in the interests of India as a country rather than hankering after Hindutva rhetoric. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> If it is so then why isn't the Left more worried about that and starts pressurising the govt. to conduct further tests?


The Left cares only about its own political interests and not necessarily in the interests of India. When it does act in India's interests, it is only coincidental. 

I don't think you have an argument against me my attacking the left, because I don't care about the left nor do I have any political allegience to the left. Just because someone has an ideology that coincides with left doesn't mean they are leftists. I personally resent the left because of their stance against free market, their pseudo-capitalism and their unionist policies.


----------



## Rahim (Jul 16, 2008)

India needs this deal to be signed to cope up with its meteoric development.
I am apalled with the politicians. When Left saw that their daal nahiin gallney wali, they started singing oh Indian Muslims wont like this deal to go through. Pathetic. If you ask any Muslim about the details of this deal, he/she  like any other Indian, would be blank and would say I have no idea. Thats was Left's last desperate cry to derail the deal but thankfully they have failed. Muslims have been toyed around the world over.

Thank God now the newswalas wont show this too much 

@Aberforth: Whats with your siggy???Funny.....
The sad thing is media/people pick up black sheeps and potray them as if all from that community are the same. After 9/11, suddenly every Muslim has become an expert in bomb-making/killing and what not. The propaganda doesnt seems to have any end


----------



## piyushbajpai1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Anyone who is claiming that nuclear energy is costly can answer what will be the future price of crude oil and when we import 80% of it .

 right now crude trading above 140 $ a Barrel and if we dont switch over to alternate sources of energy our fiscal situation will only worsen from here . we largely use diesel and coal to fulfill our energy needs and as a developing nation we need good fiscal situation for continuity of growth if we continue to relay on oil and coal for energy   needs then we wont be left with money to do anything we just pay for crude oil to make OPEC nations richer day by day . 

And money is another thing what do one think that our coal reserve will last for centuries ? And we forgot about the pollution How ozone layer is in threat due to our high use of coal and oil . so we should at least switch on to alternate source of energy in those sector where there is possible   to do so .


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 16, 2008)

@Aberforth:

I have already asked you twice but will repeat again for your sake. Before jumping in to reply, Read the posts carefully will you? 

IF you look at your post quotes and the posts above it, You might notice that except the first quote, the rest weren't posted by me 

As for comparion of Sukhoi's and MRCA's, I merely said that there are two US jets as contenders for MRCA deal but it was you who jumped first to reply this:



> None of them are in the same league as Su-30 MKI, which is more in line with McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. As of now, the US does not sell F-15s to any country without a lot of pre-conditions.



In reply to this, I just said "I dont know what are you talking about" BECAUSE I couldn't understand why you chose to bring these two aircrafts in discussion when the point in question was the MRCA deal.
Yes, I admit that I may paraphrased my sentence/question somewhat wrongly, and I should have been more specific. But it was you who first made the comparision and not me. Hope you got that clear...

And as for that Sukhoi deal, if the govt wanted Sukhois it would have amended the existing deal (of 140 jets and ToT) for additional aircrafts. Its for a reason that the RFPs for MRCA is being issued.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> The production costs of nuclear averages at Rs.6-7/unit. Will the rioting population pay Rs.7/- for electricity when they realise people in other parts of the country pay Rs.3-4/- for hydel/thermal power?



Can you mention the source from which you got this info?



> Again, the reasons are political. If we have BJP in power, Agni-3 would have been deployed and we would already have fitted nuclear warheads in our missiles. The BJP could have ensured better success by pursuing policies that are in the interests of India as a country rather than hankering after Hindutva rhetoric.



So BJP is the party with more political will, eh? 
I remember, BJP being the party in power when our armed forces were deployed on the Indo-Pak border for 11 months and later recalled in the name of peace, as a face saving measure. Also, it was the then foreign minister Jaswant Singh from BJP govt. who went to Kandhar with 3 barbaric terrorists when IC-814 was hijacked. 

[sarcasm] Surely testing nukes projects India as a strong nation, who cares that releasing terrorists make us look like a soft state. Maybe we should nuke all those terrorist camps.[/sarcasm] 



			
				piyushbajpai1 said:
			
		

> Anyone who is claiming that nuclear energy is costly can answer what will be the future price of crude oil and when we import 80% of it .
> 
> right now crude trading above 140 $ a Barrel and if we dont switch over to alternate sources of energy our fiscal situation will only worsen from here . we largely use diesel and coal to fulfill our energy needs and as a developing nation we need good fiscal situation for continuity of growth if we continue to relay on oil and coal for energy needs then we wont be left with money to do anything we just pay for crude oil to make OPEC nations richer day by day .
> 
> And money is another thing what do one things that our coal reserve will last for centuries ? And we forgot about the pollution How ozone layer is in threat due to our high use of coal and oil . so we should at least switch on to alternate source of energy in those sector where there is possible to do so .



A good point.

Also construction of dams for Hydel power has side-effects like afforestation, floods etc. Development of alternate energy sources is the need of the hour.


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 16, 2008)

Oooh Dams, I just love dams. They are so huge and all! 

Only thing is we can not have dams everywhere, Rajasthan Anyone and please go recite the Dam puran in front of the Sardar Sarovar activists, they will surely give you a piece of their minds!


----------



## nix (Jul 19, 2008)

hmm.. the member aberforth... he seems to be the member of some site call abytheliberal. am not sure if he is a member or owner/contributor or just a reader, but his signature contradicts all the liberal talk that is mentioned in the site in his profile. his signature is as follow:


				"Islam is *the religion of peace*. Watch your mouth when you talk about our prophet or *we'll kill you.*" 			

now that sounds more like an extremist...


----------



## Aberforth (Jul 20, 2008)

iNFiNiTE said:


> I have already asked you twice but will repeat again for your sake. Before jumping in to reply, Read the posts carefully will you?


My repeated reading of the same posts again and again is not going to allviate your problem of being unable to comprehend what the argument is about.



iNFiNiTE said:


> As for comparion of Sukhoi's and MRCA's, I merely said that there are two US jets as contenders for MRCA deal but it was you who jumped first to reply this:


Actually the talk was all about attack jets when you, who is unable to differentiate between MRCAs and attack jets jumped into it with argument about the MRCA deal. Perhaps the irony of stepping on your own toes isn't lost on you. 



iNFiNiTE said:


> In reply to this, I just said "I dont know what are you talking about" BECAUSE I couldn't understand why you chose to bring these two aircrafts in discussion when the point in question was the MRCA deal.


The point was about the attack fighter deal, not MRCA deal. You jumped in about the MRCA, hours after I first raised the point about how India had to pass the offer of F-15 because of the accompanied politico-military baggage.



iNFiNiTE said:


> But it was you who first made the comparision and not me. Hope you got that clear...


I made the comparison for you because from your words, it appeared you were unable to make the distinction between the roles of attack fighters and MRCA fighters. I know military aviation through and through to be aware of the difference, my work deals in a field that requires extensive understanding of military and their role in geopolitics.



iNFiNiTE said:


> And as for that Sukhoi deal, if the govt wanted Sukhois it would have amended the existing deal (of 140 jets and ToT) for additional aircrafts. Its for a reason that the RFPs for MRCA is being issued.


The government still wants Sukhoi and it isn't getting replaced anytime soon. India has finalised a deal of 40 additional Su-30s in Februrary 2007 and plans to induct at least 230 Sukhois by 2014. There is no export grade Sukhoi MRCA in production at present and the Indian government doesn't owe such a brand loyalty to Sukhoi Industries as to replace the Jaguar and Mirage-2000 multi-role jets with attack fighters.



iNFiNiTE said:


> Can you mention the source from which you got this info?


Its a calculation I did where the fuel price, heavy water price, waste disposal, risk insurance and employee costs of Kalapakkam nuclear facility is divided by the electricity output for a period of 30 years. I would have posted the specifics, if only I had the time and space.



iNFiNiTE said:


> So BJP is the party with more political will, eh?


BJP is a party that is more nationalist than the Congress, not one which has stronger political will. Political will represents the ability of a ruling government or opposition to have something done despite strong opposition and it isn't the forte of any Indian political party. The BJP authorised the Shakti tests to make a political statement and fulfill its nationalist agenda, which turned out to be beneficial for Indians in the long run, if the India's position at the geopolitical arena is of any concern.  The only time any Indian party had a strong political will, it was Indira Gandhi's INC when she was in power.



iNFiNiTE said:


> [sarcasm] ....releasing terrorists make us look like a soft state. Maybe we should nuke all those terrorist camps.[/sarcasm]


That sarcasm doesn't get me as unlike you, I am not strictly aligned to a political school of thought or a party. I support ideas that I find reasonable, not what a NNN political ideology wants me to support.



nix said:


> hmm.. the member aberforth... he seems to be the member of some site call abytheliberal. am not sure if he is a member or owner/contributor or just a reader, but his signature contradicts all the liberal talk that is mentioned in the site in his profile. his signature is as follow:
> 
> "Islam is *the religion of peace*. Watch your mouth when you talk about our prophet or *we'll kill you.*"
> 
> now that sounds more like an extremist...


You seemed to be among the few here who could spot the contradiction, yet you fail to spot the satire. A harbinger of the 'religion of peace' wanted my address so that he could chop off my head, all because I suggested that Muhammad exhibited and acted on his paedophilia by marrying at 9 year old kid during his 50s.


----------



## k6153r (Jul 20, 2008)

I TOO OPPOSE IT.

Nuclear energy is not the only alternate, it can be disasterous.
Solar energy, biogas, and various other types of alternate energy sources must be given importance, and nuclear expertise can be used for the country's defence.


----------



## karnivore (Jul 20, 2008)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> I made the comparison for you because from your words, it appeared you were unable to make the distinction between the roles of attack fighters and MRCA fighters. I know military aviation through and through to be aware of the difference, my work deals in a field that requires extensive understanding of military and their role in geopolitics.


The point was, if India is doing the right thing in putting her eggs in the US basket and if it would  "hamper our national security." We surely don't have your "extensive understanding of military", but some of us are aware of geo-socio-eco politics.

The distinction was irrelevant, because, the point stands irrespective of the type of, lets say, combat aircraft. Yes India did not buy F-15s, but she has not yet dismissed her options on other US jets and if accepted, then these jets would form the backbone of Indian Air Force. And since you have "extensive understanding of military", you do realise what that would mean. Also, remember, the AWACS', that India is getting from Isreal, are because of a US nod. Not to mention, the Prat & Whitney engines, that India uses to power up her indigenous  LCA, named _Tejas_, or the electronics, that will be purchased from Isreal, all some way or the other require a nod of the Big Brother.


			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Its a calculation I did where the fuel price, heavy water price, waste disposal, risk insurance and employee costs of Kalapakkam nuclear facility is divided by the electricity output for a period of 30 years. I would have posted the specifics, if only I had the time and space.


Space, my dear friend, you have in plenty. Time, is of course, at a premium. However, being professionally trained in this field of determining costs etc. you have my full attention.

Can you please first refer me to any on-line database from where you got your cost references.Then, if you have time, answer these questions, because Mr Google is telling me a different story than you are:
- How do know the effective capacity of the yet to be built nuclear power plants ?
- How do you know at what price, India is going to acquire the unenriched fuel ?
- How did you arrive at the price of heavy water, waste disposal etc.? Did you take into consideration, the expected change in market scenerio due to the new contract ? If so, how and on what basis ?
- How did you arrive at the cost of risk insurance ?
- Did you take into consideration, the dismantling cost, terminal value etc. ?
- Why did you take 30 year as over all life ? Why not 50 yrs ? And while taking the life cycle, did you consider the potential of increasing the life after repairing, extension etc. ?

There are many other questions I have on mind. May be later.


			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> BJP is a party that is more nationalist than the Congress, not one which has stronger political will. Political will represents the ability of a ruling government or opposition to have something done despite strong opposition and it isn't the forte of any Indian political party. The BJP authorised the Shakti tests to make a political statement and fulfill its nationalist agenda, which turned out to be beneficial for Indians in the long run, if the India's position at the geopolitical arena is of any concern. The only time any Indian party had a strong political will, it was Indira Gandhi's INC when she was in power.


Since your field involves geo-politics, I guess you know that overt nationalism leads to fascism. Can you please mention, which of the "something' did BJP do, other than revision of histroy, "despite strong opposition".

I do not know how Shakti benefited India in the long run, because, if I remember correctly, hundreds of important civilian projects got delayed because of the mass ban, which was lead, not by US, but by Japan. Yes, we do have a proper nuke, but other than that, what else did we achieve ?

Yes, why not, lets have another Indira Gandhi and another dictator. After all its nationalism that matters. Everything else can go to hell


----------



## hsr (Jul 20, 2008)

OFFTOPIC:Hey is this a religious war or some CRYSIS ? man, youre supposed to be debating not fighting...


----------



## nix (Jul 20, 2008)

Aberforth said:


> You seemed to be among the few here who could spot the contradiction, yet you fail to spot the satire. A harbinger of the 'religion of peace' wanted my address so that he could chop off my head, all because I suggested that Muhammad exhibited and acted on his paedophilia by marrying at 9 year old kid during his 50s.



yeah, i failed to notice that.. but that was a good one...


----------



## nikhil (Jul 21, 2008)

This deal can work in India's favour. It will reduce our dependancy on oil which is in limited quantity and the oil producing countries have a monoply on it. Besides pesuing this nuclear deal, we should also explore other alternative energy options to fully exploit the natures bounty without being dependend on one source.


----------



## Renny (Jul 22, 2008)

Sign the deal and accelerate economic reforms.


----------



## nix (Jul 22, 2008)

today BJP MLAs have shown money offered to them by Samajwadi party. everyday , the indian politics stoops to new lows, breaking the previous record low. and i dare not speak against sonia gandhi or rahul gandhi. otherwise i will be jailed.  
the whole world will be laughing at us. esp china. we should stop comparing ourself to china. 
and amitabh bachchan, the one whom we call the "legend" is far from that. he is just another actor who exists solely for his benefit. he is very close to samajwadi party.

am just so disappointed with this system. india needs rule of iron hand...


----------



## praka123 (Jul 22, 2008)

a big kalank to India  . sure ,congress may have offered crores of rupees.still....

left want to show support to china ,while right(UPA) is too much obediant and desparate for paramaanu treaty


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Jul 22, 2008)

bleh,Like I always say "indian politics suck dicks,and huge ones at that".


----------



## Plasma_Snake (Jul 22, 2008)

Indian Politics and Politicians are destroying the nation which is standing feebly on the shoulders of few Engineers,Doctors and Armed Forces. politicians are ready to bribe guys Rs.25 Crore, become America's ***** and even spend 10 crore per inspection which is to be held 20 times a year, all for a source of power that is going to be ousted by 2030. I say that even if 25% of this money is spent on Indian Scientists and Engineers, we can and will deliver a Thorium based Nuclear Reactor to utilise the abundant Thorium which lies waste in the sea sand of states like Kerela and TamilNadu.


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 22, 2008)

Even if the confidence vote was on the nuclear deal issue, its obvious that none of the parties had the interest of the nation as its concern. The manner in which all parties were trying to bribe MPs from the other side is really sick.

Also, a deal which is of so importance to the future of the nation either way, is left to be decided on the votes of few MPs who were either in prisons or were having criminal records.


----------



## Plasma_Snake (Jul 22, 2008)

Well, results just came;
253, In favor of Deal and 232 against it, Congress pulled it off. 
Imagine if Lok Sabha preceding are co-ordinated by Thinkdigit forum MODS, I bet its gonna be an empty house coz Ministers ain't gonna behave and Mods ain't gonna bat an eyelash to Kick 'em out literally.


----------



## Garbage (Jul 22, 2008)

It's not final till...

But hope, it shld final...

In person, I don't want Elections now...


----------



## ico (Jul 22, 2008)

iNFiNiTE said:


> Even if the confidence vote was on the nuclear deal issue, its obvious that none of the parties had the interest of the nation as its concern. The manner in which all parties were trying to bribe MPs from the other side is really sick.
> 
> Also, a deal which is of so importance to the future of the nation either way, is left to be decided on the votes of few MPs who were either in prisons or were having criminal records.


Well, thats the Indian political system......These f|_|(king MPs are playing "Aayaram - Gayaram".....This No-confidence thing seriously needs to be amended.....

Anyways, the main aim for the MPs who voted NO was to make the Government fall, not to see the benefit of the nation.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 22, 2008)

another election ,how many million rupees ? ( not to say that the country's economy etc will go down.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2008)

rise in prices...this is getting bad


----------



## narangz (Jul 22, 2008)

Congratulations to Mr. Manmohan Singh. Now I am waiting for the deal to get thorough & economic reforms by the great economist & the visionary- Mr. Singh.

Thank God, the central govt. got rid of those communists


----------



## Plasma_Snake (Jul 22, 2008)

We over here are logic based organisms. for us its either 1 or 0, Positive or Negative, Matter or Anti-matter. So applying the same logic in the field of Politics, if one party which has majority, proclaims to do the Good and all the betterment of general public, THEN BY LOGIC the opposing party must be one wanting to do everything evil, so why do we have a Bi-Party system. Dictatorship Rules. Look what it did to Germany, made it bounce back into *** whoppin' shape after WW 1 and even after WW2 ze Germans are ruling although not under Dictatorship coz here to the progress and peace depends upon the person incharge. 
So all I'm saying her is that, whatever we do, in a nation like India situation ain't gonna improve unless some Terminator from future comes with a hitlist of all MPs.


----------



## Renny (Jul 23, 2008)

nix said:


> today BJP MLAs have shown money offered to them by Samajwadi party. everyday , the indian politics stoops to new lows, breaking the previous record low. and i dare not speak against sonia gandhi or rahul gandhi. otherwise i will be jailed.
> the whole world will be laughing at us. esp china. we should stop comparing ourself to china.
> and amitabh bachchan, the one whom we call the "legend" is far from that. he is just another actor who exists solely for his benefit. he is very close to samajwadi party.
> 
> am just so disappointed with this system. india needs rule of iron hand...



^ Totally agree with you buddy, India needs to be ruled with a iron hand,

People talk about freedom and stuff, but here freedom is people pissing, shitting, spitting where ever they want, and having bandhs an strikes everyday.

And why shouldn't we compare ourselves to China, we are gradually catching up to them, and they are a benchmark for us.


----------



## hsr (Jul 23, 2008)

The debate is over...... the problem solved...... oh heavens


----------



## anispace (Jul 23, 2008)

iNFiNiTE said:


> Even if the confidence vote was on the nuclear deal issue, its obvious that none of the parties had the interest of the nation as its concern. The manner in which all parties were trying to bribe MPs from the other side is really sick.
> 
> Also, a deal which is of so importance to the future of the nation either way, is left to be decided on the votes of few MPs who were either in prisons or were having criminal records.



very true. The Trust vote was just another excuse for the oppn parties to topple the govt. and come to power. They give a damn for the Nuke deal or the country


----------



## piyushbajpai1 (Jul 24, 2008)

k6153r said:


> I TOO OPPOSE IT.
> 
> Nuclear energy is not the only alternate, it can be disasterous.
> Solar energy, biogas, and various other types of alternate energy sources must be given importance, and nuclear expertise can be used for the country's defence.




 Oh give it a thought buddy , u want to make thousands of megawatts of electricity by using Solar cell , bio Gas .


----------



## iMav (Jul 24, 2008)

Do you know how much % of electricity is the nuclear deal going to provide?


----------



## hsr (Jul 24, 2008)

fairly 3% i think...


----------



## nix (Jul 25, 2008)

now that the deal is approved on our side. i'd like to see the deal implemented fast. we in karnataka are having a  tough time. the monsoons have failed again and we are having 8 hour power cuts everyday. water scarcity+inflation+power shortage...god save us..
im praying to the gods to grant us some rain.
edit: i think the monsoons failed due to global warming... very sad we are not acting on it. water harvesting should be made compulsory... just look at the amount of water that goes into the drains even when it rains an hour...you'l be shocked.. if all of us did rain water harvesting on our roofs.. then it would be so good...


----------



## praka123 (Jul 25, 2008)

^In kerala too monsoon was low.but now it is raining for past 24 hrs.


----------



## ico (Jul 25, 2008)

praka123 said:


> ^In kerala too monsoon was low.but now it is raining for past 24 hrs.


In Delhi, this year's raining broke record......

Anyways, whatever happened (bribing and all), the end result is good.....


----------



## dheeraj_kumar (Jul 25, 2008)

*Sigh* I didnt participate in this debate because I didnt know anything about the deal, but now it turns out I've gotta speak FOR the nuke deal at the debate on August 15 at college. Now I'll just read up on it and post my questions.


----------



## hsr (Jul 25, 2008)

*The Final Debate.... for the final guy..*

looks like someone just got his Debate...! 


dheeraj_kumar said:


> *Sigh* I didnt participate in this debate because I didnt know anything about the deal, but now it turns out I've gotta speak FOR the nuke deal at the debate on August 15 at college. Now I'll just read up on it and post my questions.


goold lord, my thread meant something atleast...


----------

