Posted on: 24-08-08 10:42:28
My personal opinion is not about like and dislike since it does not affect me personally. I am only pointing out the deal is not only for volume, as some one metioned above and also not just to make money from the sale but there is more. Just look at some examples I mentioned earlier. And then again it is upto India/Indians to decide how will the feel by accepting the US as a big brother. As I mentioned I have nothing against it either but am just pointing out that this deal is not just about trade.
In summary, India would spend money and will rely on US technolgy. Now when there is embargo there will be more affect on Indian economy. As long as India is fine with it, there is nothing wrong. As long as India does not go to a level where embargoes would be imposed, there is nothing wrong with it. So now the question is what all this means to you or Indians, it is upto them.
thanks for the link, I thought the deal will be more or less in trillions but it is less than the amount spent in Iraq in one year.
Quote:
Originally posted by bc2on
thanks for the link, I thought the deal will be more or less in trillions but it is less than the amount spent in Iraq in one year.
Thanks for all your input.
taken form http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/24/top14.htm
India won’t accept terms on N-deal
NEW DELHI, Aug 23: India will not agree to any conditions to get approval from an atomic trade cartel necessary for a civilian nuclear deal with the United States, a report quoted India’s foreign minister as saying on Saturday.
A 45-nation meeting on whether to lift a ban on nuclear trade with India ended inconclusively on Friday after many raised conditions, leaving the future of the controversial bilateral nuclear deal unclear.
“We have to see what kind of amendments come,” Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee told Press Trust of India news agency.
The nuclear cartel must agree to allow nuclear fuel and technology exports to India for its civilian atomic energy programme to help seal the 2005 US-Indian trade accord.
Diplomats said conditions tabled at the NSG included intrusive UN inspections of Indian civilian nuclear sites; cancellation of any waiver if India tests bombs again; and periodic reviews of Indian compliance with the exemption.
New Delhi, sensitive to domestic leftist charges that closer ties with the United States will undo its strategic autonomy, has insisted on a “clean and unconditional” waiver from the NSG.
Time is running out on the bilateral deal which still has to reach US Congress latest by early September for ratification, before the house breaks for the November American elections.—Reuters
Quote:
Originally posted by bc2on
If it is about sale then yes India can afford buying volume but so does 10 small countries. Also China may have more power to buy as well as Iran. A Smaller Arab country can probably buy more plants than the entire India.
India economy is and purchase power remain to grow while others pockets are already full.
The total electricity generation capacity for all the arab nations was 138,000 MW's in 2006 http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/v50n46-5OD01.htm.
While as the generating capacity for India in 2006 was 131,000 MW's ... http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/energywatch/news/article_1184013.php/India_envisages_about_950000_MW_power_requirement_by_2030
The projections for all the arab nations in 2030 is 500,000 MW's while as India is looking at 800-900,000 MW's.
Again India right now imports 70% of its oil from overseas. So if India has to meet the targets it has set, it has to go nuclear. So for US it is a big market ....... Smaller arab nations have generation capacities / requirements equivalent to our states. ......... so no comparison.
Fine you win no comparosin but would you let the ohter market get out of your hands if you are doing the business? I am sure you will try to capture every market you could. Also remember India may not continue to buy till 2030 unless no internal development is planned. Hopefully, this is not what you are thinking and right now your numbers are not that far apart--- thanks for proving my point that I made wiht out knowing the usage.
Quote:
Originally posted by bc2on
Fine you win no comparosin but would you let the ohter market get out of your hands if you are doing the business? I am sure you will try to capture every market you could. .
To begin with nuclear power is not a lollypop that US can give to anyone. Secondly if you see the data ......... an oil rich REGION (having 12-15 countries) is going to need 375 GW's in next 20 years and A single country needs 750 GW's in 20 years .... of which the major percentage is going to be nuclear power. So which market should US concentrate on ........
