Once again the execs are pushing on congress to by-pass legislation in favor of 'business deals'.
A nuclear trade agreement with India is in the works (a deal to allow india to buy nuclear technology from the US). This agreement will, hopefully, give US companies a leg up on R&D of new Indian power plants, etc. If we wait we'll lose out to France and/or Russia, or so the story goes.
The administration is also touting this deal as an avenue to further negotiate India's nuclear policies. India has NOT signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Anyway, Congress is a supposed to allow itself a 30 day delibertaion period on any international nuclear policy, but the execs are pressuring them to waive it.
So, should we wheel and deal with India in the nuclear market? If we don't someone else, undoubtedly, will.
Should congress speed things up under Bush's urging?
Would this jeopardize or weakn the non-proliferation treaty?
Is India ever likely to be a threat, nuclearly speaking?
Would, could, the technology that India cause more fear and distrust in the Middle-east?...would the US be held to blame?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- India and Nukes
India and NukesFollow
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Is India ever likely to be a threat, nuclearly speaking?
Not to us, directly. However I can see Pakistan doing a similar deal in the Middle East to stay current with India's technology.
I'm not worried about India attacking us, but this deal could significantly destabilize a fairly precarious region.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Selling nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology to either of two neighbouring countries that hate each other's guts and whose governments are not particularly stable is not what strikes me as a "good idea".
I work with a guy from India. He likes cricket and watches all sorts of American sports now that he lives here. Nice guy.
Has anything Bush pushed for worked out well yet?
I say go for it. You sell all of your other secrets anyway, what's one more? And in truth, if you don't, someone else will, or they'll come steal it. Better they get full knowledge, including safe handling processes than just the ability to make it.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2008 12:01pm by Uglysasquatch
Edited, Sep 22nd 2008 12:01pm by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
The deal has always been: don't develop nuclear weapons and we'll help you build nuclear energy.
That is why this is a big deal: India has nuclear weapons, meaning if we help them build nuclear power plants, there is officially no reason not to develop weapons. Of course, Pakistan also has nuclear weapons and, to my knowledge, was the source of proliferation all over the world. So asking India to disarm, then we'll help, is not an option.
It really isn't hard to build weapons. No one expected so few nations to have nuclear weapons back in the 50's. But no one expected nuclear energy to be so unpopular, either.
That is why this is a big deal: India has nuclear weapons, meaning if we help them build nuclear power plants, there is officially no reason not to develop weapons. Of course, Pakistan also has nuclear weapons and, to my knowledge, was the source of proliferation all over the world. So asking India to disarm, then we'll help, is not an option.
It really isn't hard to build weapons. No one expected so few nations to have nuclear weapons back in the 50's. But no one expected nuclear energy to be so unpopular, either.
It's pretty hard, being "allies" with two neighboring countries who hate each other so much. If we sell to India, Pakistan's new regime will throw a fit. They're already attacking our troops as it is.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
From personal experiance, Indians are very nice people but they are also very passionate and easily angered, but are gracious once that anger has passed.
Not a great combination with Nukes.
This gross stereotype was brought to you by the letters R A C I S and T.
Not a great combination with Nukes.
This gross stereotype was brought to you by the letters R A C I S and T.
Baron von tarv wrote:
From personal experiance, Indians are very nice people but they are also very passionate and easily angered, but are gracious once that anger has passed.
Not a great combination with Nukes.
This gross stereotype was brought to you by the letters R A C I S and T.
Not a great combination with Nukes.
This gross stereotype was brought to you by the letters R A C I S and T.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
From personal experiance, Indians are very nice people but they are also very passionate and easily angered, but are gracious once that anger has passed.
My wife is Indian. You're spot on there!
And as Deathwysh said :
Quote:
Has anything Bush pushed for worked out well yet?
Nope. Not anything that immediatly springs to mind.
And judging by the state of maintainence of anything but a 5 star+ hotel in India, I can't see how nuclear power anything is a good idea for them.
Then again, nuclear power anything is a bad idea in my book, for anyone. Nuclear free New Zealand yay!
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Then again, nuclear power anything is a bad idea in my book, for anyone. Nuclear free New Zealand yay!
Quote:
Presently correctly built and maintained nuclear power is the world only chance of not going belly up by the 22nd centuary.
I disagree.
When someone figures out what to do with the waste, then maybe it will become a viable energy source.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
When someone figures out what to do with the waste, then maybe it will become a viable energy source.
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
Presently correctly built and maintained nuclear power is the world only chance of not going belly up by the 22nd centuary.
I disagree.
When someone figures out what to do with the waste, then maybe it will become a viable energy source.
Nice, eh?
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Nah. I've always maintained we should chuck it in here.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
Presently correctly built and maintained nuclear power is the world only chance of not going belly up by the 22nd centuary.
I disagree.
When someone figures out what to do with the waste, then maybe it will become a viable energy source.
It is possible to reprocess it. The French ran a commercial reactor for years this way (I think called superphoenix?). It is expensive, it can be messy, but theoretically it could provide basically an unlimited supply of fission based nuclear power with no significant high level waste. The current model will exhaust uranium supplies relatively quickly.
Fusion would of course supply infinite energy but much more significant technological barriers remain.
It is unclear to me if fission with reprocessing is cheaper then, say, solar. Both are more expensive then the majority of power produced now. That doesn't mean we can't do it, or that other cheap renewables (wind) are not viable.
I've been looking at the figures being banded about by the scientists rather than the environmental groups, and the ball park figure seem to be 15% of the worlds energy could be supplied by renewable sources by 2050, that leaves 85% to be made up in one way or another.
In my opinion regardless of the problems with nuclear, it has the posibility of filling that gap in the short or medium term.
The alternative is a return to the victorian age and probably the deaths of Billions of people.
I have an old school friend i speak to once a year who is involved in nuclear fisson project and in real terms they are no closer to it being a viable source than they where ten years ago.
had to correct my bad england.
Edited, Sep 23rd 2008 2:39pm by tarv
In my opinion regardless of the problems with nuclear, it has the posibility of filling that gap in the short or medium term.
The alternative is a return to the victorian age and probably the deaths of Billions of people.
I have an old school friend i speak to once a year who is involved in nuclear fisson project and in real terms they are no closer to it being a viable source than they where ten years ago.
had to correct my bad england.
Edited, Sep 23rd 2008 2:39pm by tarv
Quote:
15% of the worlds energy could be supplied by renewable sources by 2050,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I've always been under the impression that the vast majority of the energy availiable on this planet has its origins from the sun in the form of solar radiation, and a smaller but still significant percentage from the moon, wich is responsible for our weather and oceanic tides.
Both of these sorces are 'renewable', unlimited and clean, and have served the planet well for billions of years (or about 6 thousand years if you happen to be a republican VP candidate).
So rather than spending billions upon billions of dollars generating energy with horrifically dangerous nukular methods, wouldnt it be sensible to spend those billions of dollars researching, building and implementing solar and tidal arrays on a massive scale to do the job nice and safely?
The sun and the moon are massive free energy generators. Why ar'n't we using them, rather than contemplating more nuclear power stations that are just plain innefficient and potentially, catastrophicaly dangerous in the short term, and a deadly legacy for millenia to come.
If I can power 65% of my power needs for my house with about 50 square feet of solar panels, using current technology, why can't that be done on a global scale?
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
So rather than spending billions upon billions of dollars generating energy with horrifically dangerous nukular methods, wouldnt it be sensible to spend those billions of dollars researching, building and implementing solar and tidal arrays on a massive scale to do the job nice and safely?
Nuclear power isn't horrifically dangerous.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Nuclear power isn't horrifically dangerous.
Then you wont find this difficult to watch.
I wont put a NSFW tag on this, but its bloody hard to not get emotional.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
If I can power 65% of my power needs for my house with about 50 square feet of solar panels, using current technology, why can't that be done on a global scale?
Solar energy is also cost prohibative at the moment and requires huge investment both in terms of material and upkeep, requiring hazardous chemicals to stored within the home in large quantities.
Lead acid and cadmium batteries are in their own way just as hazardous as low level nuclear waste and would be required to be changed on a semi regular basis.
You clearly have no idea about what happened at chernobyl if you are using it as you example as to why the nuclear industry is not safe.
It's a bit like using Hitler as a reasoning for why Democracy is a bad system of govenment.
It's a bit like using Hitler as a reasoning for why Democracy is a bad system of govenment.
Quote:
You clearly have no idea about what happened at chernobyl
Whats to know?
A massive event at a NUCLEAR power station caused untold suffering to thousands of people, and the legacy of that event will be with us for thousands of years. If Chernobyl wasn't nuclear, it wouldn't have been the disaster it was (and still is).
Quote:
Because only 30% of the Uk's energy is used to power people houses, the other 60% is used in Industry or the commercial sector.
Solar energy is also cost prohibative at the moment and requires huge investment both in terms of material and upkeep, requiring hazardous chemicals to stored within the home in large quantities.
Lead acid and cadmium batteries are in their own way just as hazardous as low level nuclear waste and would be required to be changed on a semi regular basis.
Of course it requires huge investment. Thats my point, d'uh.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
A massive event at a NUCLEAR power station caused untold suffering to thousands of people, and the legacy of that event will be with us for thousands of years. If Chernobyl wasn't nuclear, it wouldn't have been the disaster it was (and still is).
Quote:
correctly built and maintained nuclear power is the world only chance of not going belly up by the 22nd centuary
AND YES THAT CAN BE DONE.
Recent Visitors: 161
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (161)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- India and Nukes
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC