The scientifically impossible I do right away
The spiritually miraculous takes a bit longer

Bush is a champion of double standards.
Anyone who says he is playing fair is deluded.

I want our Prime Minister to come clean on this and forget his stance and let the deal be discussed and debated.

I am hoping this deal, in its present form does not get the NSG approval.

I am not an expert on the working of the nuclear industry.

But I agree totally with you on your observation about trusting Bush.
He and his government should not be trusted at all.

While you’re reading, I suggest you also read a bit about “realism” to inform yourself of international relations

@ Dweep,
that was uncalled for.
Unless you can prove the questions I raise are un-”realism”, in both senses of the word,
you can keep such comments to yourself.

This is a blog for us simple people, we use our common sense to question the world we live in.

Your university knowledge of “realism” is being wasted here.
I am sure there are educated gullible intelligents elsewhere who will appreciate your superior knowledge.

I “suggest” you do not waste your time and efforts here any further.

I do not have a problem if Mr Singh explains what the catch(es) are and why he thinks accepting those catches is the best way forward.

I also would like to know what the worst possible scenario that India may face. For I hope it is not facing American nukes ever.

The problem arises, when the government does not come clean and raises doubts amongst the general public.

As for this Bush agreement, the American administration is once again arrogantly ignoring its own committments and Bush is seeking to change US law here, there and everywhere to suit his agenda. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is being deprived of access to civil nuclear materials. India hasn’t signed the treaty but Bush is willing to cooperate and declares it as a responsible state. Well we certainly can’t criticise India for looking after its own interests but I think Bush is being deliberately provocative and two-faced. I’m not just skeptical. I’m totally untrusting. He’s playing games. He has an agenda here. Here’s a guy who lifts his country’s Asian arms embargo and sells a missile fleet to Pakistan and an anti-missile system to India. Hmm. What does that tell you?

Might as well smash the NPT, America is blatantly disregarding it. Britain is too in its plans to replace Trident. Once again, thanks largely to George Bush and his usual arrogant double standards, the world is living under the threat of the bomb.

no offense but wind (not much potential in india) water(again not much potential in india) solar(lots ofpotential) in india.Are going to be much much much more expensive to set up than nuclear power and take a hell of a lot of time.

little indian , the world is not fair. There will be a catch. Just that india will be better off with that catch than no nuclear power

In view of America’s track record in dealing with the middle east and subcontinent, especially this administration, you are right to be skeptical. This is, after all, a man who has with a straight face suggested we develop low-yield nuclear weapons for “tactical” use in modern conflicts. He has also shown little patience with international laws and treaties with which he disagrees (for clarification, see Guantanamo Bay). Anyone who makes a deal with him is playing a very dangerous game indeed.

what is your opinion about this agreement which Bush made into a Law,
and the way America seems to be skirting around the NPT?

The scientifically impossible I do right away
The spiritually miraculous takes a bit longer

What you are saying is, this IS NOT about Energy or “Trade”. I am glad that you are atleast honest about this.

But a “strategic partnership”, like they had with Saddam Hussain when they wanted to destroy Iran? Or with the Mujahedeens to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan?

Please remind me how those “strategic partnership”s eventually turned out? And remind me who gave nuclear know how to Iran, and are now getting ready to nuke them?

Petrodollar is fighting to survive against the petro-euro; and
America is in a face off with Russia-China(-Iran). They have realised very late, Pakistan is very friendly with China and the Taliban to be a reliable ally. Ofcourse the neo-con war machine has to occupy Iran, for oil, and even more so to protect the petrodollar.

So dangle the carrot at the stupid Indians, they will feel so flattered, they will join hands with us. And we will launch a proxy war like we had between Iraq and Iran, from the safety of the White House and Pentagon.

America doesn’t pay anyone anything unless there is something more for them in return. Neither do they bother to “convert skeptics like me ” with generosity, they bomb them out of existence (or if so called allies, back to the stone ages). To trust Bush and his neo-con cronies is not just stupid, but suicidal. I would rather sleep with a rattlesnake.

What you wrote and the manner in which you write makes me distrust this even more. It seems only those with a personal or business interest will support this.

I prefer to read the Hyde Act, the 123 Agreement in their original text and make my own judgement, so I am passing on your links. I also prefer to gather my own evidence, (and not from CNN or FoxNews.)

Thanks anyway, for your comment,
I did not find any substance in your explanations.

The aim for India is similar – to create a niche for itself outside the NPT. This deal effectively places India on par with the 5 nuclear weapons states. That is because it gives India (almost) all the benefits of being a full signatory to the NPT, while having to sign all of its safeguards.

Referring to your note on neurojava, note my previous article about the Henry Hyde Act (a US law) still applies to the current debate. Because in the Indo-US relationship, the Hyde Act will supercede the 123 Agreement. More here and here

I agree, to sign NPT means trade with the members of NSG only.
But if our PRIMARY reason is just TRADE for better, cleaner energy for the future, that would be the honest way, everything above board.

The 123 agreement (which I may go into in future) IS not GUARANTEED to get us into the NSG, China may veto that unless Pakistan is also given the same status.

So we are being asked to accept a deal which ties us to one single country, with strict preconditions for 40 years. A country that can no longer be trusted to follow International Law, or UN regulations.

And every year, before reporting back to the Congress we will be susceptable to arm twisting by the US President with the threat that any “unforseen circumstances” and we have to return it all.

That is stupid.
Weren’t the Russians prepared to give us reactors with no such clauses, I wonder why that was turned down.

I only read the worst possible outcome if we DO NOT sign, why is everyone cagey about what is the worst possible scenario if WE DO SIGN and then India is accused of breaking the deal, and / or other regulations of N-trade. Even WORSE is if our non-compliance with any of USA’s future foreign policies is considered by them as an “UNFORSEEN CIRCUMSTANCE”?

Manmohan Singh has to come clean put on record what that would be.

If Bush is powerful enough to bend the 123 section of their Atomic Energy Act, he is well capable of excluding Section 123 a) (4) altogether and negotiate a better opt out clause or tie in period.
It is a question of who wants this deal more, and who has a stronger nerves. Or who is being honest. I hate backhanded deals.

But as you agreed, we cannot ditch the military N-programme,
it would be suicidal. For signing the deal could well be a different form of Harakiri.

I know your take on this, but you have not convinced me.
Thanks for your comments anyway.

India does not sign the NPT because it represents the same sort of nuclear monopolisation that the NSG does.

The NPT consists of 189 members, five of whom are declared nuclear powers and the rest nonnuclear powers. No other state except these five, all of which have tested their nukes before 1967, can possess nuclear weapons.

Acceding to the NPT would be harakiri for it would take away India’s sovereignty. If India accedes, it would do so as a Non Nuclear Weapon State because according to the NPT, Nuclear Weapon States are only those which tested their nukes before 1967. India, which has tested in 1974 and 1998, simply cannot accept this silly condition. India would accede only when it is accepted as a Nuclear Weapon State de jure.