No subject

Indian Left of having much of a clue.
Of course, I also do despise the obsession with
"national/nuclear sovereignty" which the Left very
much shares with the Right. This only means that India
must have the right operate as a rogue state outside
of any multilateral control whatever. One can hardly
tell the Left from the Right on this issue.

Quote
Had the deal be signed, it would of subordinated the
*totality* of India's nuclear program to the US,
resources would of dried up for indigenous atomic
resources like thorium, etc. It is a BAD deal from a
pro-nuclear and pro-Indian  perspective.
Unquote

The hard fact is that a grand and unique concession
was on offer in gross contravention of internationally
accepted norms. The concession that has been brusquely
refused to Pakistan. (I don't recall any of the
opponents of the deal on the ground of "national
sovereignty", whether from the Left or the Right, ever
attempting to address this point what would appear as
a riddle from their point of view.)
And it is for you to explain, going beyond mere facile
and fanciful assertions, how the "*totality* of
India's nuclear program (would have become
subordinated) to the US"? And on the fairy tales as
regards the potentials of thorium, now we'd have
enough opportunity to call the bluff. The taste of the
pudding would be in its eating.
Moreover, it's precisely the paucity of domestically
available uranium that made the deal so crucial for
India's nuclear programme.
The greatest casualty of the collapse of the 'deal'
would be India's civilian nuclear programme.
Hope we would both be around to review the status
after a couple of years.

Sukla


Subject: Re: [Marxism] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Sinking
Ship (?)
> To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Message-ID: <471104CF.6030608 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed
>
> Hi Sukla,
>  Well, I think you summed up the binary nature of
this debate well. I
> happen to agree with the communists (of various
stripes) that the issue
> IS national sovereignty and not proliferation. I
think they have a
> better understanding of the importance of the
relationship of India to
> the US than you have, IMHO. Had the deal be signed,
it would of
> subordinated the *totality* of India's nuclear
program to the US,
> resources would of dried up for indigenous atomic
resources like
> thorium, etc. It is a BAD deal from a pro-nuclear
and pro-Indian
> perspective.
>
> The development of a sustainable energy program for
India isn't just in
> the interest of Indian capitalists, it is in the
interests of the Indian
> people. The limited fossil resources that are
polluting, murderous
> resources means that some other form of power needs
to be developed.
> Hydro is limited...but I understand a few more GWs
can be had...and
> therefore is almost at it's peak now. Will climate
change, there will
> actually be less hydro resources available. We are
feeling this in
> California already, which is a heavily hydro
dependent State in the US.
>
> There are no real plans to use renewable, integrated
with recycling,
> integrated with conservation that can come close to
helping with India's
> development, regardless of the type of gov't or the
class that runs the
> state. Only nuclear can do this and the majority of
the Left understands
> this. India's gov't for decades has dribbled in some
capital to develop
> indigenous nuclear technology. Now it has to take it
REALLY seriously
> and do this. There simply IS no other way.
>
> Later,
>
> David


      ____________________________________________________
One email account is enough. Simplify your life by switching other accounts into Yahoo! Mail.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/trueswitch_overview