Comments on: About the Nuclear Energy Deal

By: Two consonent views on the 123 Agreement

Two consonent views on the 123 Agreement — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:56:57 +0000

[...] Related post: About the nuclear energy deal. [...]

By: vakibs

vakibs — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:20:25 +0000

When you speak of experts, why not listen to Anil Kakodkar, the father of India's Thorium reactor.

By: prateeksha

prateeksha — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:30:12 +0000

Thanks to P.K.Iyengar, and Atanu of course.. I hadn’t a clue about the Nuclear Deal which everybody was talking about.

[ The other commenters don't seem to have a clue on how to carry forward an argument ]

By: bhopale

bhopale — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:40:52 +0000

Sitaram Yechuri says, "The Indo-US nuclear deal will spin off nuclear
commerce worth hundreds of billions of dollars. There are huge profits to be
made by multinational corporations and many Indian corporates … It is
precisely this that the Left seeks to prevent in the interests of India’s
future."

After this, nobody should have any more doubt that the deal is in national
interest and should be supported fully

By: Nitin

Nitin — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:38:13 +0000

Atanu, You are right to say that one must defer to experts when one does not know enough. But one should also not rely on only one expert. I think Mr B Raman puts it very well when he writes: 14. In finding answers to these questions, one has to go by the professional advice of our serving scientists of today who are in the leadership position in our nuclear community. All of them, without exception, have stated categorically that by and large the deal will be beneficial to India and is necessary in the present context. 15. The negative voices have been coming from some senior and highly distinguished scientists, who occupied leadership positions in the nuclear scientific community during the days of our own cold war with the US, when the bilateral relations were marked by bitterness. The younger generation of our scientists, who make the policies today, have a more open mind to the US and do not allow memories of past bitterness to come in the way of innovative policy initiatives. Should the retired scientists of yesterday try to inhibit innovative re-thinking by making the debate emotional instead of remaining professional? They have every right and even duty to draw attention to what they look upon as pitfalls and traps. Once their comments have been considered by the serving scientists of today and they have come to the conclusion that the deal is worth giving a try, should the retired scientists carry on their dogged opposition and mobilise public and political opinion to prevent the impementation of the deal? 16. Immediately after signing the deal in July,2005, the Prime Minister said:" I told the Chairman of our Atomic Energy Commission. You have the veto power. If you say sign, I will sign it. If you say, don't sign, I won't." After examining the draft, the Chairman of our Atomic Energy Commission advised the Prime Minister to accept it and he did. Since then, the Chairman has been consistent in his support for the deal. His technical judgement and that of his serving colleagues should be accepted without seeking to create doubts about them in the minds of the public. [Raman's blog]

By: Notsure

Notsure — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:34:16 +0000

PK Iyyengar must have written that while PK’ed enought to kiss an Iyyer….None of then were misconception.
It opens up another method to generate electricity.
That was it.
He lies about adequate uranium for 10GW for next 30 years at same price that you can buy it externaly then there was no reason to have bought uranium 3 times each time creating diplomatic fiasco with(russian, US, and French)
I think there was a botched attempt with australians too.
And mind you the run reactors at quarter and eight capacity plenty of times . It was done long enought for it to become a news item….
This is called Naak Upar Karo Khareedte Samay ….