Indian Communists are irrational fools

[pusher robot]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=15620654 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15620654)


U.S.-India Landmark Nuclear Deal Stalls

Listen to this story...

Morning Edition, October 25, 2007 · A nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India is in jeopardy, after Communist parties in the Indian government objected. The U.S. would welcome India as an accepted nuclear-weapons nation. India would receive help with its civilian nuclear power.


What kind of communists are these? Indians desperately need this electricity. They seem to be willing to put their own nationalistic interests and, shockingly, their nuclear weapons program, over the basic material needs of their own people.

Communism for the loss.

[Phalanx]

Yeah, but the Communist party in West Bengal is communist in name only. They're big fans of big business, and their privatization has gone further than Chinese policies.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 25, 2007 02:09 pm
What kind of communists are these?
Stalinist/reformist ****s.

[synthesis]

I would have to hear more about their motivation for opposing the deal to come to any kind of educated conclusion.

[synthesis]

Doing a little more research I see valid concerns in the Communist Party's opposition to the deal. They argue that the deal would create conditions that would make India dependent or subservient on the U.S. and amounts to neo-colonialism.

I see many resemblances to the Akosombo Dam debacle in Ghana under Nkrumah. Corporate lobbyists persuaded the government to sign an exploitative contract to dam the gorge on Lake Volta whereby only 20% of the electricity went to the population who shouldered over 50% of the cost, the rest of the electricity going to an American aluminum company.

Not only was wealth pilfered, but the Volta community suffered serious consequences as a result of the dam, including infertile soil, exponentially increased malaria and bilharzia rates, forcible relocation, and decimated aquaculture. There is no reason for post-colonial Communist groups to assume that America has positive intentions in mind for them.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 26, 2007 05:15 am
Not only was wealth pilfered, but the Volta community suffered serious consequences as a result of the dam, including infertile soil, exponentially increased malaria and bilharzia rates, forcible relocation, and decimated aquaculture. There is no reason for post-colonial Communist groups to assume that America has positive intentions in mind for them.
I was surprised at how quickly a few here were willing to be condescending to real, local struggles against imperialism. The Communists there may be Stalinist types, those in Nepal may be Maoist, but who are we to judge communist organizations which not only have power, but local support?

[Dr Mindbender]

if this was going to benefit local, Indian scientific knowledge then i could see a positive but since the technology and profits will be probably be controlled by Americans I think the Indian communists were probably right to oppose this.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 12:51 pm
if this was going to benefit local, Indian scientific knowledge then i could see a positive but since the technology and profits will be probably be controlled by Americans I think the Indian communists were probably right to oppose this.
This is just irrational spite.

They're willing to keep their population without electrical power just to make sure Americans can't possibly benefit?

They have an opportunity for cooperation to achieve mutual benefit. Only a fool throws away such an opportunity out of vain spite.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 26, 2007 02:49 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 26, 2007 02:49 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 12:51 pm
if this was going to benefit local, Indian scientific knowledge then i could see a positive but since the technology and profits will be probably be controlled by Americans I think the Indian communists were probably right to oppose this.
This is just irrational spite.

They're willing to keep their population without electrical power just to make sure Americans can't possibly benefit?

They have an opportunity for cooperation to achieve mutual benefit. Only a fool throws away such an opportunity out of vain spite. [/b]
thats beside the point.
The american companies will consume local resources and exploit local labour at knock-off rates just as sportswear companies have done elsewhere in asia. The profits then of course, will be taken out of the indian infrastructure. India is developing rapidly as it is, without this sort of assistance. It would be far better for the immediate economy if indian companies supervised this project.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 26, 2007 02:49 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 26, 2007 02:49 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 12:51 pm
if this was going to benefit local, Indian scientific knowledge then i could see a positive but since the technology and profits will be probably be controlled by Americans I think the Indian communists were probably right to oppose this.
This is just irrational spite.

They're willing to keep their population without electrical power just to make sure Americans can't possibly benefit?

They have an opportunity for cooperation to achieve mutual benefit. Only a fool throws away such an opportunity out of vain spite. [/b]
Not really. Power stations are popping u all over India right now. It is not a country struggling for energy. As far as I am aware, urban India does not lack for electricity at all now.

Of course the problem is that they are using very unclean forms of energy. And they need to improve that. But that leads to two questions. The first is whether nuclear power is a good idea in the first place and the second is whether this is a good deal.

I personally find it very hard to be pro-nuclear enrgy given Douneray's habit of leaking into the Irish sea. This isn't the fifties, we now know nuclear energy has very large downsides and is not the cure-all to energy problems.

Leaving that aside there is the second question. This deal will msot likely not benefit India very much anyway and will likely simply be another measure by which America can profity off the third world poor. No Communist, not even of the rather suspect variety they have in India, can be anything other than wary of that.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 26, 2007 08:00 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 26, 2007 08:00 am)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 02:49 pm

Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 12:51 pm
if this was going to benefit local, Indian scientific knowledge then i could see a positive but since the technology and profits will be probably be controlled by Americans I think the Indian communists were probably right to oppose this.
This is just irrational spite.

They're willing to keep their population without electrical power just to make sure Americans can't possibly benefit?

They have an opportunity for cooperation to achieve mutual benefit. Only a fool throws away such an opportunity out of vain spite.
thats beside the point.
The american companies will consume local resources and exploit local labour at knock-off rates just as sportswear companies have done elsewhere in asia. The profits then of course, will be taken out of the indian infrastructure. India is developing rapidly as it is, without this sort of assistance. It would be far better for the immediate economy if indian companies supervised this project. [/b]
The basic issue here is that although on a superficial level it is "cooperation", on a more fundamental level the Americans have something the Indians need which puts the Americans in a position of power, which American corporations have historically used as leverage to exploit the local population. The Indian Communists argue that nuclear power on American terms may be worse than no nuclear power at all, based on a realistic historical analysis.

[pusher robot]

This deal will msot likely not benefit India very much anyway and will likely simply be another measure by which America can profity off the third world poor. No Communist, not even of the rather suspect variety they have in India, can be anything other than wary of that.

It's inconceivable to me that you could argue with a straight face that a clean, reliable, and abundant supply of electricity does not benefit India very much. What, only enlightened first-worlders care about a clean environment? It's no big deal that rural electrification is abysmal?

All they are being asked to do in return is agree to limitations on their nuclear weapons program, they're not being forced to buy anything from us if they don't want to. Why is that so unreasonable, and why do communists in particular object? I suspect it has nothing more to it than a simple lust for power, and I wouldn't be surprised if China was behind a lot of this.

[synthesis]

It's inconceivable to me that you could argue with a straight face that a clean, reliable, and abundant supply of electricity does not benefit India very much. What, only enlightened first-worlders care about a clean environment? It's no big deal that rural electrification is abysmal?

You can beat us over the head with this all you like. The fact remains that you could have said the same thing about hydropower with regards to the aforementioned Akosombo Dam, yet the locals still would have been equally fucked by the subsequent flooding of the river basin as well as not receiving commodities proportionate to how much was paid for them.

I think it would be a reasonable assumption that the deal could lead to a situation where American resources combined with a lack of similar safety standards negatively affect the Indian population, while the nuclear power chiefly serving foreign corporations.

As a wise person on this forum once noted, there are very few "iron laws" of history, but there is at least one: If it happened before, it can happen again.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 06:09 pm

This deal will msot likely not benefit India very much anyway and will likely simply be another measure by which America can profity off the third world poor. No Communist, not even of the rather suspect variety they have in India, can be anything other than wary of that.

It's inconceivable to me that you could argue with a straight face that a clean, reliable, and abundant supply of electricity does not benefit India very much. What, only enlightened first-worlders care about a clean environment? It's no big deal that rural electrification is abysmal?

All they are being asked to do in return is agree to limitations on their nuclear weapons program, they're not being forced to buy anything from us if they don't want to. Why is that so unreasonable, and why do communists in particular object? I suspect it has nothing more to it than a simple lust for power, and I wouldn't be surprised if China was behind a lot of this.
Niclear energy is not clean by any stretch of the imagination. Here in this, ahem, enlightened first world nation, Douneray as I say has been leaking for years now and the leukemia rates in the area are shocking. Not to mention all of the nuclear waste we have to deal with isn't clean.

And how is India going to be any better off? Why should they have to spend huge amounts of money to deal with the illnesses, deal with the nuclear waste etc for the benefit of American corporations.

To borrow, one of your phrases, it is inconceivable that you can tell me with a straight face that nuclear energy is clean and efficient. We thought that back in the fifities, but we have learned the hard way that it isn't the case.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+October 26, 2007 07:08 pm--> (Demogorgon @ October 26, 2007 07:08 pm)
pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 06:09 pm

This deal will msot likely not benefit India very much anyway and will likely simply be another measure by which America can profity off the third world poor. No Communist, not even of the rather suspect variety they have in India, can be anything other than wary of that.

It's inconceivable to me that you could argue with a straight face that a clean, reliable, and abundant supply of electricity does not benefit India very much. What, only enlightened first-worlders care about a clean environment? It's no big deal that rural electrification is abysmal?

All they are being asked to do in return is agree to limitations on their nuclear weapons program, they're not being forced to buy anything from us if they don't want to. Why is that so unreasonable, and why do communists in particular object? I suspect it has nothing more to it than a simple lust for power, and I wouldn't be surprised if China was behind a lot of this.
Niclear energy is not clean by any stretch of the imagination. Here in this, ahem, enlightened first world nation, Douneray as I say has been leaking for years now and the leukemia rates in the area are shocking. Not to mention all of the nuclear waste we have to deal with isn't clean.

And how is India going to be any better off? Why should they have to spend huge amounts of money to deal with the illnesses, deal with the nuclear waste etc for the benefit of American corporations. [/b]
If history is any indication, the "cost of the illnesses" will actually only cost human lives - U.S. corporations have for a long time profitted off of the illnesses of the Indian people, by testing drugs on them without their knowledge.

[Mujer Libre]

Thanks for your posts Demogorgon. I won't comment further on the nuclear issues because I think you're done a pretty good job already, plus I can't be bothered right now. ;)

I just wanted to comment on this thread in general. Is it only me that finds people from this board calling Indian communists (however shit we think their politics are) "irrational" for rejecting Western (capitalist even!) ideas of "progress" quite unsettling?

Maybe we should be discussing their reasons for making the decision they did, rather than labelling a whole bunch of brown people irrational for not thinking the same way 'we' (and by that I mean the OP and friends) do? *rolleyes*

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+--> (Mujer Libre)Maybe we should be discussing their reasons for making the decision they did, rather than labelling a whole bunch of brown people irrational for not thinking the same way 'we' (and by that I mean the OP and friends) do? *rolleyes*[/b]

Good post and good question.

I do not seriously take the topic starter who is a restricted member.


Any way the deal is opposed by CPI and CPI(M) because they have to oppose the deal because US is capitalist or imperialist but because the conditions laid down by the US governmant for the supply of uranium might effectively reduce ability to research and develop nuclear technology of its own and make India to be dependent on the US for anything.

And India don't need to buy uranium from US really. Here thorium is in abundance and with appropriate technology it could be used to fuel nuclear reactors.


William Everrd
Stalinist/reformist ****s.

Do you have anything to offer to the discussion ?

Instead of proclaiming that you are the only "revolutionary" n the whole world in every thread it would rather help if you posted anything on the subjects of the thread.

Your label and your heroes is totally unknown in India. So get over yourself and stop labeling everybody as reformists.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 27, 2007 12:50 am
I just wanted to comment on this thread in general. Is it only me that finds people from this board calling Indian communists (however shit we think their politics are) "irrational" for rejecting Western (capitalist even!) ideas of "progress" quite unsettling?
Is electrification really a "Western (capitalist even!)" idea of progress?

Are you a primitivist?


By the US governmant for the supply of uranium might effectively reduce ability to research and develop nuclear technology of its own and make India to be dependent on the US for anything.

Do you have a source for this?

Better yet: why don't you read the agreement itself (http://www.armscontrol.org/projects/India/20070803_123.asp) and tell me what you think is objectionable?

As I see it, the U.S. has bent over backwards to accommodate India. For example, look at this provision:


(b) To further guard against any disruption of fuel supplies, the United States is prepared to take the following additional steps:

i) The United States is willing to incorporate assurances regarding fuel supply in the bilateral U.S.-India agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which would be submitted to the U.S. Congress.

ii) The United States will join India in seeking to negotiate with the IAEA an India-specific fuel supply agreement.

iii) The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors.

iv) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.


They are fools because they are sabotaging an opportunity to stop being a nuclear pariah and provide electrical power to their people instead of detonating nuclear warheads to intimidate their neighbors.

[Lynx]

Why are you singling out communists? Some comrades support nuclear energy. If you believe everyone who opposes nuclear energy are fools, just say so!

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by pusher=robot+--> (pusher=robot)Is electrification really a "Western (capitalist even!)" idea of progress?

Are you a primitivist?[/b]
Are you a moron?

Opposing this uranium deal =/= opposing electrification.

That I need to spell that out is really pathetic on your part.


Lynx
Why are you singling out communists? Some comrades support nuclear energy. If you believe everyone who opposes nuclear energy are fools, just say so!
Because it was te Indian Communist parties that blocked this particular deal from going ahead.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:15 am
Why are you singling out communists? Some comrades support nuclear energy. If you believe everyone who opposes nuclear energy are fools, just say so!
This was not the reason that the agreement faced opposition from the Indian Communist parties. As anyone can see, one side effect of the international practices of American corporations that any activity undertaken by the American government will be perceived, rightly or not, to be in the interest of corporate actors instead of the local people. And with the immense risks of nuclear energy that accompany its great gains, it's perfectly logical that some folks just don't want to take the chance.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:15 pm
Why are you singling out communists? Some comrades support nuclear energy. If you believe everyone who opposes nuclear energy are fools, just say so!
I am in this case because India's government was poised to accept the agreement but it was specifically the communist parties that torpedoed it.


Opposing this uranium deal =/= opposing electrification.

It certainly doesn't support it either.

[Demogorgon]

My goodness, the red herring count is going off the scale here. Opposing this deal is not about opposing electrification, firstly India is not quite the backwards country lacking electricity but for the kindness of Americans that you seem to believe it is and secondly as I say, nuclear power is not ver reliable. I know people of your political persuasion are loathe to acknowledge that the second half of the twentieth century happened, but even you can not deny that we now know nuclear power to be very risky and the cause of a great deal of trouble. Here for example as I keep saying our leaking plants (which were never that efficient anyway) send the leukemia rates off the scale and make the Irish Sea not exactly the safest place in the world to take a swim.

Of course India won't be avoiding nuclear power just by getting out of this deal after all. It capable of developing plants itself after all. It should be pointed out that a large part of this deal was US desperation to bring India under its wing. All through the cold war India was outside of American influence and little attempt was made to bring it to heal. Now that India is the worlds third biggest economy and about to emerge as a super power that is looking like a bit of a mistake and the United States is rather keen to bring India onside before they have to deal with another China.

Speaking of which, both China and Pakistan, traditionally India's main enemies are nuclear powers. Notwithstanding my own opposition to nuclear weapons, I can understand why India is unikely to step down its own nuclear programme before those two do.

[pusher robot]

nuclear power is not ver reliable.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. It is the single most reliable source of electrical power we have.

And need I remind you that the contaminated facility you keep talking about was not a commercial power generation facility but a government-operated research facility? And that almost all commercial nuclear facilities are entirely free of detectable contamination?


Even you can not deny that we now know nuclear power to be very risky and the cause of a great deal of trouble.

I can and do deny it. Casualty per gigawatt figures are the lowest for any energy source. Nuclear energy can be perfectly safe and clean.



make the Irish Sea not exactly the safest place in the world to take a swim.

Source? Citation? Anything?


It capable of developing plants itself after all.

Yes, but it will have a hell of a hard time obtaining fuel for them, because of their nonsignatory and noncompliant status with respect to the NPT.


I can understand why India is unikely to step down its own nuclear programme before those two do.

No one is asking them to step it down, just abide by certain nonproliferation agreements.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 06:44 pm
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. It is the single most reliable source of electrical power we have.

And need I remind you that the contaminated facility you keep talking about was not a commercial power generation facility but a government-operated research facility? And that almost all commercial nuclear facilities are entirely free of detectable contamination?

Ah but of course. If it were simply the private sector invovled the nuclear waste would be vanishing into thin air :lol: Next you will be telling us that if th Government had no involvement in the tobaco industry and left it entirely to the market, cigarrettes will not cause ill health
Source? Citation? Anything?http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/nuclear/reprocess/saveour06.html
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business.../sor1030-02.htm (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-02/sor1030-02.htm)
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/...9503220214.html (http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0450/D.0450.199503220214.html)
http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=546&id=788972007

Yes, but it will have a hell of a hard time obtaining fuel for them, because of their nonsignatory and noncompliant status with respect to the NPT.

Well firstly as has been pointed out, the necessary fuel can be mined in India and secondly American hypocrisy will shortly render this mute as Indiia will be recognised as a nuclear power within the next fie years (maybe even getting a permanent seat on the security council within a longer time frame) and will shortly be able to ignore the non proliferation treaty as much as America does.

And it will be able to do so without having to sign crippling deals with America that will keep it on the yankee leash even when it is a super power. Isn't the world great?

[pusher robot]

If it were simply the private sector invovled the nuclear waste would be vanishing into thin air

So, in your mind, the only two possibilities for nuclear waste are (a) contaminating the environment and (b) vanishing into thin air. I don't suppose you'd care to explain why all the scientists and engineers who have developed methods for safely storing or disposing of radioactive materials are wrong. Maybe you have some evidence that all the nuclear materials being safely stored at commercial facilities right now are actually killing us all. If so, I'd love to see it.



Source? Citation? Anything?http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/nuclear/reprocess/saveour06.html
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business.../sor1030-02.htm (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-02/sor1030-02.htm)
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/...9503220214.html (http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0450/D.0450.199503220214.html)
http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=546&id=788972007

Wow, three non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed citations that do absolutely nothing whatsoever to support the proposition that the Irish Sea poses any kind of radiological risk to swimmers. Am I supposed to be impressed?


as Indiia will be recognised as a nuclear power within the next fie years

What? They are already recognized as a nuclear power - have been since 1974. Do you even know what nonproliferation means? And when, any time recently, has the U.S. violated nonproliferation guidelines?


And it will be able to do so without having to sign crippling deals with America that will keep it on the yankee leash even when it is a super power. Isn't the world great?

I posted a link to the entire text of the agreement. Rather than pompous, vapid grandstanding, why not contribute something meaningful to the debate and tell me what provisions you think are "crippling" and constitute a "yankee leash."

[synthesis]

Out of curiosity, are you not responding to my posts because you don't feel it's worth the time, or because you have not found anything to disagree with?

At the very least, are you willing to reconsider your analysis that the Indian Communists are "irrational" and that in fact they may have valid reasons for opposing the deal?

[Lynx]

They're not being irrational or ideological, they are representing their constituents within a parliamentary democracy. Or they are "horse trading".

Besides, is this deal really dead?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 08:29 pm

So, in your mind, the only two possibilities for nuclear waste are (a) contaminating the environment and (b) vanishing into thin air. I don't suppose you'd care to explain why all the scientists and engineers who have developed methods for safely storing or disposing of radioactive materials are wrong. Maybe you have some evidence that all the nuclear materials being safely stored at commercial facilities right now are actually killing us all. If so, I'd love to see it.


Certainly nuclear waste can be stored, never completely safely of course, never in a risk free manner, but stored nonetheless. I was mocking your noption that somehow the contamination is only there because it was not a commercial site. As I say you would probably tel me cigarrettes would be harmless if only there was no Government intervention

Wow, three non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed citations that do absolutely nothing whatsoever to support the proposition that the Irish Sea poses any kind of radiological risk to swimmers. Am I supposed to be impressed?[/quote[The insults would be more hurtful had they come from somebody capable of counting to four. There were four links there. They may also have cut more ice had you read them. Two were Government sources (one Scottish, one Irish) and another was quoting the Scottish First Minister discussing the commonly agreed impact of Douneray. The Scottish Parliament link referenced the scientific evidence you were asking for and showed the impact on the Irish sea.

Of course, were you less of a complete nerd without one iota of humour you would hhave noticed the jest in the Irish sea not being safe for swimmers. Were anyone stupid enough to try and swim in it for more of a few minutes the hypothermia would get them long before the radiation did. I once saw someone turn blue after just thirty seconds in the water there and that was in summer. Perhaps I best avoid any kind of humour with you in the future.[quote]What? They are already recognized as a nuclear power - have been since 1974. Do you even know what nonproliferation means? And when, any time recently, has the U.S. violated nonproliferation guidelines?
Judging from this comment, I seem to understand what it is far better than you. India is not a recognised nuclear power. YOu don't seem to understand what the phrase means. Of course everybody knows they have nuclear weapons and they don't make any effort at all to hide it, they are not recognised in International law as a nuclear power, hence the difficulty. It is for this reason they won't sign the non-proliferation treaty. Which is ironic when you think about it because Israel did sign it and gets away with its non recognised nuclear weapon programme as a result.

India will shortly be recognised as a legitimate nuclear power though. It wants a permanent seat on the security council and as it will shortly be a very powerful country with huge trading opportunities, it will get one. Recognising its nuclear programme as legitimat in internaitoonal alw will be a step towards that.

As for Ameria violating the treaty, well its current nuclear arms developments are widely thought o be in violation, though the details escape me. What I am very clear on though is that Britain's proposed upgrade of its entire nuclear arsenal is definitely in violation of the non proliferation treaty. And lo and behold, guess which country is providing the technology for that?
I posted a link to the entire text of the agreement. Rather than pompous, vapid grandstanding, why not contribute something meaningful to the debate and tell me what provisions you think are "crippling" and constitute a "yankee leash."That has already been explained to you by our Indian poster, who apparently did not warrant a reply from you. The proposed deal would render India completely dependent on America for further nuclear development.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 30, 2007 09:04 pm
Out of curiosity, are you not responding to my posts because you don't feel it's worth the time, or because you have not found anything to disagree with?

At the very least, are you willing to reconsider your analysis that the Indian Communists are "irrational" and that in fact they may have valid reasons for opposing the deal?


I didn't respond to you specifically because several other posters said similar things. You said:

This was not the reason that the agreement faced opposition from the Indian Communist parties. As anyone can see, one side effect of the international practices of American corporations that any activity undertaken by the American government will be perceived, rightly or not, to be in the interest of corporate actors instead of the local people. And with the immense risks of nuclear energy that accompany its great gains, it's perfectly logical that some folks just don't want to take the chance.

And I argued that (a) avoiding material progress for vanity is irrational and (b) opposition to nuclear energy based on fear of "risks" is irrational. Especially so for a country known to construct and detonate(!) nuclear warheads.


I was mocking your noption that somehow the contamination is only there because it was not a commercial site.

It is a big reason, yes - as the ultimate authority, the government has no incentive to be careful in its environmental practices, where commercial entities do. It's no secret that that most severely contaminated facilities in almost every country are government or former government facilities.


Perhaps I best avoid any kind of humour with you in the future.

That is such a lame defense. "Sure there wasn't any truth to what I said, but...um...I was joking! Can't you take a joke?!" Okay, fine, but the point stands that there is no significant radiological hazard posed by the sea.


Judging from this comment, I seem to understand what it is far better than you. India is not a recognised nuclear power. YOu don't seem to understand what the phrase means. Of course everybody knows they have nuclear weapons and they don't make any effort at all to hide it, they are not recognised in International law as a nuclear power, hence the difficulty. India is a "declared" nuclear state. They're recognized as having nuclear weapons. They're not recognized as legitimately having nuclear weapons. You've got this all muddled up. That's not WHY they haven't signed the NPT - they are not recognized as "legitimate" under international law because they haven't signed it. And they don't indicate they will sign it any time soon. They could have agreed to this deal but they didn't do that either.


India will shortly be recognised as a legitimate nuclear power though. Not unless they sign the NPT, which would require MORE of them than this agreement would.

Which is ironic when you think about it because Israel did sign it and gets away with its non recognised nuclear weapon programme as a result.
What the fuck are you talking about? ISRAEL IS NOT A SIGNATORY.


That has already been explained to you by our Indian poster, who apparently did not warrant a reply from you. The proposed deal would render India completely dependent on America for further nuclear development.
You keep restating this conclusion without explaining your reasoning. There's no need to assume or make guesses. They text has been posted for all to read.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 10:07 pm

It is a big reason, yes - as the ultimate authority, the government has no incentive to be careful in its environmental practices, where commercial entities do. It's no secret that that most severely contaminated facilities in almost every country are government or former government facilities.


Governments can at least be voted out of office if they make too big a mess of these matters. Private Companies can't. Of course they can face fines. But wouldn't that be statist intervention?

The worst case of pollution I know of within the UK was the pollution that was caused by the coal power stations. Interestingly enough before nationalisation safety standards were so low than they were almost literally death traps. Things began to improve once the state took a hand. And it was the tyrannical passing of the clean air act, interfering with the good workings of the free market that made the air breathable again
That is such a lame defense. "Sure there wasn't any truth to what I said, but...um...I was joking! Can't you take a joke?!" Okay, fine, but the point stands that there is no significant radiological hazard posed by the sea.It is not my fault if you have never looked at an atlus in your life, or if you are too stupid to spot humour. Anyone with the faintest understanding of geography would have realised that nobody swims in that sea. The point, which I am amazed I even have to spell out is that it is affecting the fish in the sea, and given the fact we have an already troubled fishing industry that isn't good.

Mind you, on the swimming note, I recal that the Republic complains about the effect onits beaches from time to time. So I guess the swimming point did have a serious side.
India is a "declared" nuclear state. They're recognized as having nuclear weapons. They're not recognized as legitimately having nuclear weapons. You've got this all muddled up. That's not WHY they haven't signed the NPT - they are not recognized as "legitimate" under international law because they haven't signed it. And they don't indicate they will sign it any time soon. They could have agreed to this deal but they didn't do that either.You plainly don't understand what it means to be a recognised nuclear power. It doesn't mean people know you have them or that you admit to it. In legal terms it means you are recognised as having a legal programme. Something India obviously lacks. But something ti will shortly gain for other diplomatic reasons.

And are you aware of what the NPT would in theory require of them? Because they are not a recognised nuclear power it would require that they dn't develop weapons at all. Obviously they aren't going to sign it until they have assurances that they will be recognised. Of course when they do sign, I rather suspect they will ignore the terms of the agreement in the same way as China does, it was largely for China's benefit that those weapons were developed after all and I doubt they intend to give China any advantage there.
What the fuck are you talking about? ISRAEL IS NOT A SIGNATORY.My mistake of course. I was reading about South Africa's programme and the Israeli connection there obviously mixed me up. As you are good at demonstrating. it happens to the best of us.

You keep restating this conclusion without explaining your reasoning. There's no need to assume or make guesses. They text has been posted for all to read.He, and I, were both referring to practical implications. I am aware that this is virtually impossible to explain to someone with your political outlook, but there happens to be a real world out there where the future effects of signing an greement in the present will have implications beyond the actual text of the treaty. Both Communist Parties are deeply concerned that the future implications of this deal would include India becoming reliant on the US for nuclear technology and India's own nuclear research falling by the wayside.

Mind you I suspect that is what the United States wants. As I said earlier they don't want another China.

[pusher robot]

You plainly don't understand what it means to be a recognised nuclear power. It doesn't mean people know you have them or that you admit to it. In legal terms it means you are recognised as having a legal programme. Something India obviously lacks. But something ti will shortly gain for other diplomatic reasons.

"Recognized" in the sense that you are using, i.e., "recognized as a legitimate world nuclear power" means "has nuclear weapons and signed the NPT."


And are you aware of what the NPT would in theory require of them? Because they are not a recognised nuclear power it would require that they dn't develop weapons at all. Obviously they aren't going to sign it until they have assurances that they will be recognised.

Signing the NPT would cause them to be a recognized nuclear power. There is nothing in the NPT that would require them to dismantle their existing weapons program. But they aren't going to sign it for various reasons, such as the ban on test detonations.


I was reading about South Africa's programme and the Israeli connection there obviously mixed me up.
Obviously.


He, and I, were both referring to practical implications. I am aware that this is virtually impossible to explain to someone with your political outlook, but there happens to be a real world out there where the future effects of signing an greement in the present will have implications beyond the actual text of the treaty. Both Communist Parties are deeply concerned that the future implications of this deal would include India becoming reliant on the US for nuclear technology and India's own nuclear research falling by the wayside.

So, in other words, you can't articulate any specific problems, but there are "concerns" about nebulous "future implications" which definitely make opposition not irrational. Well, okay, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

Have I mentioned that I have serious concerns about the future implications of a communist society that will result in a totalitarian dictatorship? Not that I can tell you specifically why - these are practical concerns after all, so that mustn't be expected - but I'm absolutely certain those fears are not irrational.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 11:41 pm

Signing the NPT would cause them to be a recognized nuclear power. There is nothing in the NPT that would require them to dismantle their existing weapons program. But they aren't going to sign it for various reasons, such as the ban on test detonations.


But their existing weapons programme could and probably would be considered illegal if they were to simply sigfn it now. So they won't. They will sign it when they get the concessions they want. Of course that is probably the crux of it. Once they do sign the treaty, they will simply ignore it like the other nuclear powers do, but they want to get the concessions first.


So, in other words, you can't articulate any specific problems, but there are "concerns" about nebulous "future implications" which definitely make opposition not irrational. Well, okay, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

Have I mentioned that I have serious concerns about the future implications of a communist society that will result in a totalitarian dictatorship? Not that I can tell you specifically why - these are practical concerns after all, so that mustn't be expected - but I'm absolutely certain those fears are not irrational.I gave you a very specific problem. It will damage India's own nuclear research. That might not seem an issue to you or to me or to whoever, but you can bet it is a problem for the Indian government. Do you really think the Government of an emerging super power would be wise to cripple its own nuclear research and become reliant on a foreign country? That is the crux of the matter for both the Communist Parties and indeed for various other forces in the Indian Government.

As for your concerns for a future Communist society, yes you hae expressed them. I might even have entertained them if they had made any sense. But you will have to forgive me when I say I do not believe the potential pitfalls in Communism stem from calling ourselves Communists.

[pusher robot]

I gave you a very specific problem. It will damage India's own nuclear research.

Yes, you listed a concern, but you didn't provide any plausible evidence or even rationale as to how that would be caused by the proposed agreement. It is, as it stands, a non-sequitur.

[synthesis]

Again, were the problems created by the Akosombo Dam taken into account before its construction? With a rational analysis of history, you'd have to be an idiot to assume positive intentions on the part of the American government.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 10:41 am

I gave you a very specific problem. It will damage India's own nuclear research.

Yes, you listed a concern, but you didn't provide any plausible evidence or even rationale as to how that would be caused by the proposed agreement. It is, as it stands, a non-sequitur.
Look none of the capitalist corporations act out of generosity. And certainly not U.S. There are might be a lot of hidden terms in the agreement and the LDF just wanted the government to come out with a white paper on the issue and the terms to be debated in the parliament before the deal is done.

The current ManMohan singh governmanet relies on the support of the LDF. That is the reason the government has budged to their demand. The ruling congress is not yet ready to tface the elections at this stage.