- Status
Renny
Padawan
^ 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.
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
The Internationalist
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?
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.
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.Also its Quid Pro Quo in todays world.
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'.
Where did you get that one from? About 98% of the electricity in India comes from hydro or thermal power stations.
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...
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.
Last edited:
iNFiNiTE
The cake is a lie!!!
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
IIRC, we have two US fighter jets as contenders for the latest 126 MRCA deal.
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?
"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
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?
Last edited:
Aberforth
The Internationalist
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
iNFiNiTE
The cake is a lie!!!
^^ Whats with the double post?
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.
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)}
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?
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?
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.
Who is talking about building nuclear weapons close to cities? Read the post carefully please.
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.
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)}
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?
Last edited:
kumarmohit
Technomancer
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
The Internationalist
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
red_devil
Back!
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 !!
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
The cake is a lie!!!
Comparing Su-30MKI and F-15s to MRCAs? You got to be kidding me..
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:
Read again will you? I hope you know about sarcasmiNFiNiTE said:
Last edited:
afonofa
Journeyman
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.
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.
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?
You are absolutely correct. This is India, a broadband connection takes anywhere from 6 months to 3 years to materialize!
Thanks for the link.
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!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.really glad to know that almost everyone on this forum supports the nuke deal
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.
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.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?
ROTFLMAO!!
Last edited:
karnivore
in your face..
eh he he he........Experienceafonofa 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?
I am apolitical. Neither Congress, nor BJP, nor Commie.Pleasure's all mine.afonofa said:Thanks for the link.
You are correct my friend.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.
But.....Sonia "karnivore" Gandhi......
mediator
Technomancer
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.afonofa said:
I think money is no problem if the quantity vanished in corruption is recovered!
Aberforth
The Internationalist
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Rahim
Married!
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
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
Last edited:
piyushbajpai1
Broken In
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 .
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 .
Last edited:
iNFiNiTE
The cake is a lie!!!
@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:
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.
Can you mention the source from which you got this info?
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]
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.
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:
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:
Can you mention the source from which you got this info?
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:
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.
Last edited:
- Status