World Politics

[El Pistolero]

What a load of crap. Typical xenophobia that one comes to expect when the status quo is somewhat changed (even if it is sarcastic). India has proven itself to be as stable a nuclear country as any other in the world, read as permanent members of the UNSC. Why don't I hear reservations about countries these countries possessing and developing a civilian nuclear programme? If I'm correct, 12-13 years ago, Russia had a serious separatist threat in Chechenya and the polity was non existent. I don't hear reservations about their programme in 2011.

The material is bought for civilian nuclear technology and are essential for a alleviating a crippling power shortage in the country. I would expect such comments coming from people who needn't live without electricity for a the whole morning and afternoon of a Thursday, not to mention other power cuts as well, and this is in urban India. Rural India, especially states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra have hardly any power at all. We've signed treaties with countries who've had reservations in the past about our nuclear programme and it's a glass ****ing house.

The conflict in Kashmir is hardly going to force India to use nuclear weapons. It isn't like we are going to be conquered or the govt is going to fall to worry about that either. Even if that happens, try searching for it in a secret location over the whole country,

The sooner thorium becomes a sustainable nuclear fuel the better, at least we won't have to listen to such ****.

I'm against Russia and the USA having nuclear weapons as well.

You don't need to use nuclear weapons to get benefits from it, these weapons are much more effective as a weapon of fear.

 

[ramjambunath]

I did not know that, though personally I would never sell Uranium to politically unstable countries like India.

Wow, that's thick. Check the last time a govt was overthrown in India. Check the last time that a govt lost a trust vote (1998 if you don't know, which you clearly don't). FYI, India is a bastion of stability compared to Belgium.

 

[El Pistolero]

Wow, that's thick. Check the last time a govt was overthrown in India. Check the last time that a govt lost a trust vote (1998 if you don't know, which you clearly don't). FYI, India is a bastion of stability compared to Belgium.

When was the last time Chinese govt was overthrown? Or Russian govt? Yet I wouldn't call any of these countries politically stable.

 

[Ferminal]

The sooner thorium becomes a sustainable nuclear fuel the better, at least we won't have to listen to such ****.

You can even play the game the other way when the major powers want to buy your reactor technology

 

[ramjambunath]

I'm against Russia and the USA having nuclear weapons as well.

You don't need to use nuclear weapons to get benefits from it, these weapons are much more effective as a weapon of fear.

Again, read the history of what happened post the 1971 India Pakistan war before making such comments. Also, who said nuclear weapons need to be used. When has there been a threat of India using it.

Also, my post stated, why there weren't reservations against Russia's nuclear programme in 2011, this includes civilian nuclear technology as well. And go back and read my original post, the status quo being Uranium being sold to India was my original point.

When was the last time Chinese govt was overthrown? Or Russian govt? Yet I wouldn't call any of these countries politically stable.

USSR 1991
Russia's economy crippled in '98, get the facts right again.
Also read the full post, the govt doesn't receive many votes of confidence and it is a democracy unlike China and is not a controlled democracy, which Russia currently is. India has the most stable govt in South Asia and is far more stable than most govts across the world including Belgium. As a close follower of Indian democracy, I'll definitely know better than someone else just making random insinuations

You can even play the game the other way when the major powers want to buy your reactor technology

 

[El Pistolero]

Again, read the history of what happened post the 1971 India Pakistan war before making such comments. Also, who said nuclear weapons need to be used. When has there been a threat of India using it.

Perhaps not in India it self, but along the borders. It's not exactly surrounded by the most friendly countries in the world.

Also, my post stated, why there weren't reservations against Russia's nuclear programme in 2011, this includes civilian nuclear technology as well. And go back and read my original post, the status quo being Uranium being sold to India was my original point.

You said "Why don't I hear reservations about countries these countries possessing and developing a civilian nuclear programme?". Not sure what you mean by that, can you elaborate?


USSR 1991
Russia's economy crippled in '98, get the facts right again.
Also read the full post, the govt doesn't receive many votes of confidence and it is a democracy unlike China and is not a controlled democracy, which Russia currently is. India has the most stable govt in South Asia and is far more stable than most govts across the world including Belgium. As a close follower of Indian democracy, I'll definitely know better than someone else just making random insinuations

You were using "when was the last time our govt fell" as an argument. I think 20 years without the fall of a govt is pretty long(at least in Belgium). Yet I wouldn't call Russia politically stable. Of course this doesn't mean India isn't stable. And South Asia? What countries does that include? India, Afghanistan, Iran, part of China, Thailand, etc? Not exactly the most stable countries no. Belgium is a small country with democratic roots dating back from 1830 with a population of only 10 million people surrounded by stable countries. Quite a different situation with India with over a billion people and god knows how many different languages are spoken on the Indian subcontinent. Though if you say it's stable, who am I to argue.

Just a question out of interest though. How democratic is India really? Isn't it problematic that (just taking an educated guess here) 30 to 40% of the population can't read or write? Is it much better than Russia's democracy(which I don't even call a democracy anymore)? How's the corruption?

bolded:= my stuff

 

[rhubroma]

Yes because using wind or solar is really going to save us all....Good joke! Yes but we are discussing Australia importing to India so you are not included in the "we" because you are not Australian. Anyway, Australia has 23% of the world's total uranium stores so the amount we have is quite significant!

Ferminal is spot on. India already have plenty weapons that could do whatever they wanted to ****stan and vice versa. We might as well sell them some so they can start a "clean energy future" like the Aus PM says. There is going to be regular inspections anyway of what they are doing with it. At least their will be some security in place to observe they are doing what they should do with it.

Well on that note, by continued use of nuclear power we might just end up destroying us all.

I guess selling uranium, and who knows were it might end up and for which purpose, is a business just like any other. As long as its good for the economy, than what harm can it do right? Sometimes I think certain people would sell their own mother based on this reasoning.

 

[ramjambunath]

bolded:= my stuff

Serious allegation to say that India may use nukes around its borders, I may be understanding you wrong of course but there hasn't been a threat of ever using the weapons.

Why aren't there reservations about Russia developing its civilian nuclear (which faced threats in the 90s) programme as compared to India, which is a stable democracy. For a large democracy, it's as stable as you'll get and it isn't as if the Indian govt can just siphon off the imported Uranium (from the treaty) for developing WMD.

Yes, south Asia was not the best example (it also includes Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) but I also later stated most of the world. I can say with definite confidence that India is much more of a democracy than most nations (there is fraud but it isn't more than a decimal point of a percentage). It isn't a hegemonic rule by the largest 1 or 2 parties, there are 10 coalition partners in the government and so far, there hasn't been a semblance of doubt of the govt losing its majority. I don't know what else is stability.

India is as democratic as a large country can get. Other countries with a similar demographic and economic disposition are in the doldrums when it comes to democracy. Also, there have been 5 lost trust votes since independence and 3 of them were in the space of 2 years in the '90s when a new alliance was trying to form the govt but was just falling short of an absolute majority.

The literacy rate has continually been growing since independence and continues to do so, currently at 74%. Youth literacy at 80%. I'm not blind to the problems that we face as a country but whether India can remain a stable democracy is beyond doubt. Also making a political choice doesn't require literacy as much as political literacy (the ability to make an informed choice on which party would suit you) and that's actually very high in rural India. There needs to be massive development of rural India and there's a huge power shortage and this Uranium will be used for reducing that deficit.

 

[El Pistolero]

Serious allegation to say that India may use nukes around its borders, I may be understanding you wrong of course but there hasn't been a threat of ever using the weapons.

Think you misunderstood. A country's stability is also partly based on the stability of its surrounding countries.

I know there are some border disputes between India and China. Now let's say, Chinese government gets overthrown by a large mob of angry people(and that's a CONSTANT fact in Chinese history!), not just China would be thrown into turmoil but the whole region, including India. The same goes for any other country bordering India, though to a much lesser extent. That's why I am pessimistic to say the least to see countries like ****stan, China, Russia, etc with nuclear weapons. I might have been wrong in saying India wasn't politically stable, I should have said the surrounding countries are unstable(not just politically, but also economically. What will happen if economic growth all of a sudden doesn't grow to such large extent anymore in that part of Asia?) and India can be dragged into those potential conflicts.

Ps: why is ****stan censored? >_< That's quite offensive to be honest...

 

[Ferminal]

Well on that note, by continued use of nuclear power we might just end up destroying us all.

I guess selling uranium, and who knows were it might end up and for which purpose, is a business just like any other. As long as its good for the economy, than what harm can it do right? Sometimes I think certain people would sell their own mother based on this reasoning.

How is exporting ship loads of coal any better? And if they don't have coal, and they don't have uranium, how are they going to raise the standard of living of those living in far worse conditions than we do. Who are we sitting here to say that those people should not be given access to electricity?

 

[ramjambunath]

Pistolero-I owe you an apology and I apologise for the outburst in the previous page.

Thanks for the clarification.

Pakistan being censored is sick. The first 4 letters independently is racist abuse but the whole word being censored is just offensive.

India and China have had disputes in Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir since 1950 and there has only been one war, in the early '60s, and that too was due to India's lax approach to the 'threat' (I don't like this word when discussing Sino-Indian relations). Since then, there hasn't been a war and there won't be a war either. The Chinese and Indian defence forces are two of the three largest defence forces by numbers. The repercussions of a war between the nations are too much to even risk, the losses in this case would be too large. That's one of the reasons tensions remain but there's no threat of hostilities. Also in that hypothetical situation, Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir will take a back seat as Tibet will first have to be dealt with and if Tibet becomes independent or completely autonomous, then the likelihood of Arunachal being a conflict is next to zero.

 

[movingtarget]

How is exporting ship loads of coal any better? And if they don't have coal, and they don't have uranium, how are they going to raise the standard of living of those living in far worse conditions than we do. Who are we sitting here to say that those people should not be given access to electricity?

I hope the Indians do better than the Japanese as far as picking the right spots to build their reactors. One thing puzzles me though. Why won't the Indians sign the Non Proliferation Pact ? Unless they want to hold that uncertainty over ****stan.

 

[El Pistolero]

Instead of wasting cash on producing weapons they could invest it into new ways to produce electricity. And that goes for any country, especially the USA.

 

[ramjambunath]

Pistolero-I owe you an apology and I apologise for the outburst in the previous page.

Thanks for the clarification.

Pakistan being censored is sick. The first 4 letters independently is racist abuse but the whole word being censored is just offensive.

India and China have had disputes in Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir since 1950 and there has only been one war, in the early '60s, and that too was due to India's lax approach to the 'threat' (I don't like this word when discussing Sino-Indian relations). Since then, there hasn't been a war and there won't be a war either. The Chinese and Indian defence forces are two of the three largest defence forces by numbers. The repercussions of a war between the nations are too much to even risk, the losses in this case would be too large. That's one of the reasons tensions remain but there's no threat of hostilities. Also in that hypothetical situation, Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir will take a back seat as Tibet will first have to be dealt with and if Tibet becomes independent or completely autonomous, then the likelihood of Arunachal being a conflict is next to zero.

 

[rhubroma]

Apart from believing in the good intentions and stability of the Indian people and state, the problem here isn't India of course, but a myriad of other people and states, which do not inculcate such confidence and trust to the neutral observer.

Selling uranium is bad business period, if not stricktly from the economic point of view, then from the ethical and industrial ones.

One can justify it all one wants from a need for energy, diminishing fosil resources, the "right" to economic growth and development, implacable demands of modernity, whatever; but it all returns to a fundamental question: how much development is legitimite vs. illegitimite to the wellbeing of the spieces and plannet? And even, following the same logic that says economic growth and development is a natural right, how does this justify, before nature, all the radioactive waste?

It seems to me that the moment we went down the nuclear path, humanity became a new Prometheus, a champion of mankind, known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals....but to his own great demise.

I sometimes wonder if man, distracted by progress, has hopelessly regressed to the point where, in moving forward, he may be in fact be heading straight back to the Dark Ages.

 

[Ferminal]

I hope the Indians do better than the Japanese as far as picking the right spots to build their reactors. One thing puzzles me though. Why won't the Indians sign the Non Proliferation Pact ? Unless they want to hold that uncertainty over ****stan.

They could only sign the NPT if they did not have nuclear weapons as only the five big powers are allowed nukes under the NPT. This is unreasonable given China is one of those "legal" nuclear states.

Basically it says China can have nukes but India can't.

 

[El Pistolero]

Pistolero-I owe you an apology and I apologise for the outburst in the previous page.

Thanks for the clarification.

Pakistan being censored is sick. The first 4 letters independently is racist abuse but the whole word being censored is just offensive.

India and China have had disputes in Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir since 1950 and there has only been one war, in the early '60s, and that too was due to India's lax approach to the 'threat' (I don't like this word when discussing Sino-Indian relations). Since then, there hasn't been a war and there won't be a war either. The Chinese and Indian defence forces are two of the three largest defence forces by numbers. The repercussions of a war between the nations are too much to even risk, the losses in this case would be too large. That's one of the reasons tensions remain but there's no threat of hostilities. Also in that hypothetical situation, Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir will take a back seat as Tibet will first have to be dealt with and if Tibet becomes independent or completely autonomous, then the likelihood of Arunachal being a conflict is next to zero.

Nobody is driven in to war by ignorance, and no one who thinks he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear - Hermocrates

I like to think there is a lot of truth in this quote. After all Germany was not scared at all of facing the Maginot line during WWII(not that I wan't to compare East Asia of today with the situation of Europe in the 30s and 40s mind you!), the strongest defense line in the world back then. The French being arrogant and thinking the Germans wouldn't dare attack them...

You don't owe me an apology by the way, now I know something more about modern India

 

[El Pistolero]

They could only sign the NPT if they did not have nuclear weapons as only the five big powers are allowed nukes under the NPT. This is unreasonable given China is one of those "legal" nuclear states.

Basically it says China can have nukes but India can't.

It's true, it's not fair. I don't like it anymore than you do(I suppose) that every country roles over their back like a dog when it comes to China(or the US for that matter).

 

[Ferminal]

Apart from believing in the good intentions and stability of the Indian people and state, the problem here isn't India of course, but a myriad of other people and states, which do not inculcate such confidence and trust to the neutral observer.

Selling uranium is bad business period, if not stricktly from the economic point of view, then from the ethical and industrial ones.

One can justify it all one wants from a need for energy, diminishing fosil resources, the "right" to economic growth and development, implacable demands of modernity, whatever; but it all returns to a fundamental question: how much development is legitimite vs. illegitimite to the wellbeing of the spieces and plannet? And even, following the same logic that says economic growth and development is a natural right, how does this justify, before nature, all the radioactive waste?

It seems to me that the moment we went down the nuclear path, humanity became a new Prometheus, a champion of mankind, known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals....but to his own great demise.

I sometimes wonder if man, distracted by progress, has hopelessly regressed to the point where, in moving forward, he may be in fact be heading straight back to the Dark Ages.

That's nice, how do you propose we move society to one with no centralised energy supply, where the only energy we "use" is solar radiation and biomass?

 

[ramjambunath]

Instead of wasting cash on producing weapons they could invest it into new ways to produce electricity. And that goes for any country, especially the USA.

Easier said than done. A lot of the resources here are spent on agriculture development and Public Distribution System (for subsidised food for Below poverty line population).

 

[El Pistolero]

It won't happen for two reasons. One, how is India in any way different to China or any of the other permanent UNSC members who supposedly have the right to keep their nuclear arsenal while importing fissile material. It's hogwash to say that these countries will eliminate their arsenal. It's an inherently flawed treaty which isn't one among equals.
Two, Pakistan and India are both nuclear nations and it would be strategically not advisable for one or the other to sign the NPT.

Anyway, nuclear weapons wise, USA and Russia are the biggest threats considering their battery of missiles. If you include political instability into the picture, Pakistan is another threat. India ranks low among it.



Easier said than done. A lot of the resources here are spent on agriculture development and Public Distribution System (for subsidised food for Below poverty line population).

Never said it to be easy though. USA spends an incredible amount of money on their defense systems. No wonder they're in an economical crisis, it's absolutely ridiculous the amount of cash they spend. And just look at how spread out their army is over the world... Totally unnecessary if you ask me, they're digging their own grave at this rate.

 

[ramjambunath]

Dammit pistol, quoting an edited post.

I'll clarify the USA, Russia thing. These two countries control most of the nuclear weapons and the likelihood of a mishap is higher with their arsenal, nothing to do with politics. This was the very premise with which the Nuclear Start treaty (in which it was agreed to reduce the warheads) between USA and Russia was agreed.

Nobody is driven in to war by ignorance, and no one who thinks he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear - Hermocrates

I like to think there is a lot of truth in this quote. After all Germany was not scared at all of facing the Maginot line during WWII(not that I wan't to compare East Asia of today with the situation of Europe in the 30s and 40s mind you!), the strongest defense line in the world back then. The French being arrogant and thinking the Germans wouldn't dare attack them...

You don't owe me an apology by the way, now I know something more about modern India

It's not only the size of the countries' defence forces, the potential in Indo-China trade is also pretty large. It would be inadvisable to open hostilities when the potential for trade is at least $100 billion dollars within the next 4 years.

 

[rhubroma]

How is exporting ship loads of coal any better? And if they don't have coal, and they don't have uranium, how are they going to raise the standard of living of those living in far worse conditions than we do. Who are we sitting here to say that those people should not be given access to electricity?

It isn't about whether or not certain people have the right to electricity. Unfortunately there is a much more urgent need pressing: how much longer can human civilization continue to expand exponentially and expect that it has the right to continue to use nature as a receptacle to satisfy its every desire? And in all of this, where is there a right extended to nature to protect it from human calamities and prepotency? Where is nature given a right to be left in peace from vicissitudes of our progress?

In fact, the preponderance of eternal growth as a "natural right" of mankind has become the greatest ideological folly that reigns over the markets and political discourse today. Where is it written anywhere that such a right exists? In fact, it doesn't but has merely become a convenient path to take without any reflection or alternative considerations to stand in the way.

We were talking about nuclear power, so I hadn't addressed the other poisons we have invented to drive the motors of production and transport, though, in the broader historical and philosophical perspectives, the same applies. But with a certain qualification: coal may also kill us over time, yet the potential for a nuclear disaster to kill at once unimaginable numbers and befoul entire regions, places it in a slightly different category, both physically and mentally.

I do not subscribe, therefore, as some here do (yourself included), to the idea that simply because it’s possible and we need the energy, and that its economically convenient: that this provides all the legitimacy needed to pursue the mindless proliferation of nuclear development. So, ok, coal is bad too. As if that were a reason to overlook or disregard the gargantuan problems with nuclear energy. Sorry but there's no reason to that line of thinking, beyond desire.

 

[Ferminal]

In fact, the preponderance of eternal growth as a "natural right" of mankind has become the greatest ideological folly that reigns over the markets and political discourse today. Where is it written anywhere that such a right exists? In fact, it doesn't but has merely become a convenient path to take without any reflection or alternative considerations to stand in the way.

We were talking about nuclear power, so I hadn't addressed the other poisons we have invented to drive the motors of production and transport, though, in the broader historical and philosophical perspective, the same applies. But with a certain qualification: coal may also kill us over time, yet the potential for a nuclear disaster to kill at once unimaginable numbers and befoul entire regions, places it in a slightly different category, both physically and mentally.

I do not subscribe, therefore, as some here do (yourself included), to the idea that simply because it’s possible and we need the energy, and that its economically convenient: that this provides all the legitimacy needed to pursue the mindless proliferation of nuclear development. So, ok, coal is bad too. As if that were a reason to overlook or disregard the gargantuan problems with nuclear energy. Sorry but there's no reason to that line of thinking.

I'm looking for a debate on energy policy, obviously you're not capable of that. Just like I'm not capable of providing you with sufficient philosophical stimulus.

 

[The Hitch]

Of course a problem with your argumen.

What's my argument?

It's a sweeping allegation that can't be made without close research into the matter. Gazprom doesn't run Russia, the oil sector does and the govt basically runs Gazprom. If Gazprom wasn't a public sector enterprise, it wouldn't have had control over many of its main oil fields and most definitely wouldn't have gotten the Priobskoye oil field (it's the largest oil field that they acquired from Yukos, whose head Mikhail Khodorkovsky is in jail). Gazprom does Russia's dirty work when it comes to applying pressure on foreign affairs in Eastern Europe, Ukraine 2009 being the outstanding case. Let's also not forget that Ukraine upto that point had a subsidised rate for fuel but the decision not to renew the contract was clearly a political one after Yuschenko was elected.
A closer look at the 2003 and 2007 Duma will explain a lot on how the country was aimed at being run in Putin's era.

Its not my phrase, but those who say it I dont think they mean that Gazprom runs every single facet of Russian goverment, but rather that it plays a huge roll in Russian affairs.

Mostly in foreign policy of course as everyone of course knows with Ukraine.

But also its worth noting that under Putin it bought a bunch of media that was being a little to unbiased and turned them into Putin propaganda stations and newspapers.

And of course much of the Gazprom board of directors is on the blimin cabinet. Its current chairman is the previous Prime Minister of Russia.

Kind of like, for what I assume is an example you will know lots about, some would say that the East India Company was essentially British foreign policy, even though it did not have too much to do with say British European policy.