1. NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) divides the world into two parts, viz. nations which are parties to the Treaty and nations which are not parties to the treaty.
2. India, Pakistan, N. Korea and Israel fall in second part.
3. Within “parties”, there are two groups, nuclear-haves and non-nuclear-haves, ie. those nations that tested NV’s before 1967 and those that tested NVs after 1967.
4. Had we signed NPT, we would have fallen in the groups of non-nuclear-haves. The treaty restricts non-haves from possessing NVs. This is the reason we haven’t signed NPT.
5. China falls into haves’ group.
1. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a group of nuclear supplier countries which seeks to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the implementation of Guidelines for nuclear exports and nuclear related exports.[Official definition]
1. Perceived risks on the citizens' health and safety, the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster played a part in stopping new plant construction in many countries although the public policy organization Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the U.S. because the Institution's research concludes they cost 15–30% more over their lifetime than conventional coal and natural gas fired plants. [wiki]
2. Watts Bar 1, which came on-line in 7 February 1996, was the last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor to go on-line. [wiki]
3. …. Even in the U.S. and throughout Europe, investment in research and in the nuclear fuel cycle has continued. [wiki]
4. Question is what to do with developed products, technologies? They must be used somewhere. They must be sold to someone. The investments must payoff!! Scale of the business is lacs-of-crores-of dollars.
5. Mr. Karat might be having problem with this!! (Are you with him?)
1. Hyde Act is the law that modifies the requirements of Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclear cooperation with India. This enabled the U.S. to draft an 123 Agreement to operationalise what was agreed upon in the 2005 Joint Statement and permit nuclear cooperation with India. [wiki]
2. Though not applicable to India, US must adhere to it, in order to continue with 123 Agreement.
3. In simple words, it says, “The other party in the agreement must align their foreign policy with that of US, and cooperate US against Iran”
4. If not, US can discontinue with the deal.
5. US is allowed to use force against India in this case.
6. This is worse than signing NPT itself.
7. Mr. Karat has a problem with this!! (and I am with him)
1. IAEA is the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.
2. According to 123, India must keep her 14 nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards, and allow their inspection.
3. Congress rightly says that not all 14 nuclear reactors are included for inspection but there is a provision to exclude some of them, which are specified under some annexure. At the moment, it is blank!! Mr. Karat has a problem with this.
4. Also there are some contradictions in IAEA safeguards, eg. At one place they say that the newly installed systems will have to assure uninterrupted fuel supply, but on the other hand, they say, in case of discrepancies, corrective measures can be taken. [original IAEA documents and 123]
5. There are many contradictions, will take another blog. (Won’t include here so as to keep it simple.)
6. Mr. Karat has a problem with this.
1. Do we really need nuclear power? India has the immense possibility of hydropower of 150000MW. Besides Nepal and Bhutan can also help us also help in this field. Again there are other alternative sources of energy like wind power and solar power etc. [internet]
2. India has the highest reserve of thorium in the world. The Indian scientists are mastering the technology to use thorium as fuel. This deal will hamper the indigenous research in this regard. Besides higher quality uranium ore has been discovered in Ladakh.
3. Mr. Karat might be having problem with this.
1. US had huge “Education” budget during this deal. They say, Indian ministers were needed to be “educated” about the deal and its benefits. Are scientists who support this deal “educated” by them with same methods? And Karat & friends are not “educated” enough? Or they are educated by some other powers? Whom should we trust? Frustrated Saffron party + friends who are desperate to grab the power or “educated” UPA with leaders like Dr. Singh or China-inclined left?