India's response in case of an NSG Snub

[sukhish]

you take my arguments to the cleaners, but the NSG waiver 2008 is still upheld, and there lot's legal laywers and foriegn ministers who are willing to go by the
2008 text as far as ENR restrictions are concerned.

 

[olivers]

you take my arguments to the cleaners, but the NSG waiver 2008 is still upheld, and there lot's legal laywers and foriegn ministers who are willing to go by the
2008 text as far as ENR restrictions are concerned.

Do you pay vat?

This logical fallacy you are committing is called appeal to authority btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
GOI said so it must be right. Shayam Sharan said. So it must be right. Or Arun Shourie is right or Anil Kakodkar is right. Why are they right or wrong? If I want to read what they think I will read not discuss on a forum. I have given reasons for why something is right or wrong above. Not just appeals to authority.

Don't start with A said this. So I say A. Appeal to authority which is not a valid argument.

Start with I am telling this because of these reasons 1,2,3 and 4. By the way A also says this. Valid argument with appeal to authority.

 

[sukhish]

don't give me vat examples, stick to the point, does 2008 waiver has ENR provisions for india. it has. has that been nullified automatically by the 2011
NSG amendment, a big NO. rest all is just POV's. no government offcial or foreign minister of any country has said ENR denial to india because of 2011.

you are living in a fantasy la la land. cutting pasting half a text from there , and other half from 2011. I'm sorry I just don't under stand you logic.

 

[olivers]

don't give me vat examples, stick to the point, does 2008 waiver has ENR provisions for india. it has. has that been nullified automatically by the 2011
NSG amendment, a big NO. rest all is just POV's. no government offcial or foreign minister of any country has said ENR denial to india because of 2011.

you are living in a fantasy la la land. cutting pasting half a text from there , and other half from 2011. I'm sorry I just don't under stand you logic.

If you pay VAT same logic applies there also. Also without 2011 also I proved you wrong. So bugger off on personal attacks. Don't make personal attacks. Read above explanation repeated 10 times for you on why there was no ENR even in 2008 without 2011.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
This is your personal attack fallacy. Logical fallacy again.

 

[sukhish]

keep dreaming. india has exemption because of 2008 . 2011 paragraph 6) and 7) are not going to replace 2008 paragraph 6) and 7) for india, as long india waiver held up. only when that waiver is teared down or nullified then india will back to the general compartment understood. its not very complex if you under stand this logic.

 

[olivers]

keep dreaming. india has exemption because of 2008 . 2011 paragraph 6) and 7) are not going to replace 2008 paragraph 6) and 7) for india, as long india waiver held up. only when that waiver is teared down or nullified then india will back to the general compartment understood. its not very complex if you under stand this logic.

Circle again back up and read why this is not so. You have not told me why my argument against this is wrong. You only state this is right. You are right because daddy told you so. you are right because shyam told you or Ram told you. Appeal to authority, Personal attack fallacy. Keep going. Page 6 has reasoning with only 2008 text as you asked.

Suppliers should exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The national law of France, Russia and America from before the bilateral agreement prohibit transferring ENR to non NPT countries. This is the exercise restraint they were doing for 30 years. Presidential declaration of Putin in 2009 and French internal law dealing with ENR. A 2005 International agreement was codified by France, Russia and America into their internal law before they signed nuclear agreement with India in 2008 and 2009. Read the amendments. Read the previous 5 pages on multiple statements to this effect. All of these were in place before they signed the agreements with India. America had this in place since 2005. So the 2008 text did not say 20/20 vision. It said people should not be blind. It said so in a different place. So even under the 2008 agreement the French ambassador refused to give ENR in the bilateral treaty. So ENR was not part of the civil deal with any country. All countries agreed to discuss ENR at a later date. That's all nothing more. Show me one legal agreement or bilateral agreement in 2008 where anyone promises to transfer ENR. Transfer ENR is not the same as discuss the possibility of ENR transfer in a later agreement.
By possibility of transfer of ENR they might mean in return for the later agreement you will give up all your weapons. Otherwise I will not give you ENR. This not a promise to transfer. This is a promise to discuss if what I get from you later is good. It also does not mean I will not abide by NSG rules which are changed. This agreement to agree could be anything under the sun or nothing at all. So no ENR transfer was promised by any of the 44 countries. You did not tell them they cannot impose these conditions on you. It's like a proposal to marry you can change your mind at any time.

Every diplomat before signing the agreement in 2008 says ENR is not part of this bilateral agreement. France, Russia and America. Only a nuclear scientist from Russia who is not part of Russian government said we will place ENR in India. No legal standing for him as he was not even part of the governmental program. So they all got together and did you know what to you. Soft state. No one gave you ENR in 2008 and no one promised to give you ENR in 2008. They only said we will discuss. Like proposal to marry. Withdrawn now I got all I wanted from you.

So even here your argument fails.

 

[sukhish]

Every diplomat before signing the agreement in 2008 says ENR is not part of this bilateral agreement. France, Russia and America. Only a nuclear scientist from Russia who is not part of Russian government said we will place ENR in India. No legal standing for him as he was not even part of the governmental program. So they all got together and did you know what to you. Soft state. No one gave you ENR in 2008 and no one promised to give you ENR in 2008. They only said we will discuss. Like proposal to marry. Withdrawn now I got all I wanted from you.

So even here your argument fails.

are you brain dead. ENR provision is specifically added into the 2008 waiver. which govt head said ENR is not included in 2008 agreement ?

 

[olivers]

Every diplomat before signing the agreement in 2008 says ENR is not part of this bilateral agreement. France, Russia and America. Only a nuclear scientist from Russia who is not part of Russian government said we will place ENR in India. No legal standing for him as he was not even part of the governmental program. So they all got together and did you know what to you. Soft state. No one gave you ENR in 2008 and no one promised to give you ENR in 2008. They only said we will discuss. Like proposal to marry. Withdrawn now I got all I wanted from you.

So even here your argument fails.

are you brain dead. ENR provision is specifically added into the 2008 waiver. which govt head said ENR is not included in 2008 agreement ?

Personal attack again. No logical rebuttal. Keep attacking me. Personal attack fallacy of arguments.

Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.


Fallacy: Personal Attack

 

[sukhish]

sir no personal attack. I'm just saying that 2008 NSG waiver has ENR provisions in them. and that waiver still stand. along with the 2011 paragraph 6) amendment. but that amendment does not amend 2008 waiver of india. india specific exemptions for 2008 waiver still stand in same vigour and without dilution as it stood in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. even before 2011 we never had country specific ENR agreement with any country, not because of NSG restriction, but because these take time, in the first phase we sought the nuclear fuel as it was most ciritical to our need, next we will seek ENR technologies as well. so what's the fuss about ? ENR will be seperate agreement because it is more regulated as per paragraph 6) and 7) of 2008 and not because of blanket 2011 general restriction. you have given page long POV's , but you are not seeing the point I'm trying to make. paragraph 6) of 2011 will and cannot supercede paragraph 6) and 7) of 2008 india waiver, it's that simple and that's exactly what US assitant secretary of state, french foriegn minister and angela merket said.

 

[LurkerBaba]

x-post

NEW DELHI: As India inches towards a membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the China-Pakistan nuclear transfer is a sign of the growing impotence of the high priesthood of nuclear affairs.

The US circulated a "non-paper" on India's membership at the NSG plenary meeting held in Seattle on June 22. The most controversial part of the paper is that NPT membership not be seen as a "condition" for being in the NSG. The "food-for-thought" paper took forward its recommendation for India's membership that the US had circulated at the last plenary in Noordwijk last year.

With the US at the helm of NSG this year, India feels its chances of securing a membership of the non-proliferation quartet — NSG, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia Group and MTCR — are better than ever before. A statement issued at the end of the plenary said they "continued to consider all aspects of the implementation of the 2008 Statement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation with India and discussed the NSG relationship with India." But a consensus continues to elude the group.

India inches closer to NSG membership - Times Of India

 

[trackwhack]

With Obama at the helm, I am not exactly holding my breath.

 

[sukhish]

it will be a slow process, but a sure one. it will take may two more years.

 

[sgarg]

What should we do if we are not granted full membership this time?

I say test a proper thermonuclear device. The press statement should read that India's arsenal is primarily fusion based and hence we do not require any more uranium than we already have to enhance our stockpile.

There is no need for any extreme action. I think India already has bombs that it needs. It is better to focus on economic development AND developing local armament industries.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

If there is a snub and india implements the thorium program in the future
It will keep india out of the uranium market and countries like australia will lose a great opportunity
For trade

 

[sgarg]

First of all, India does have Uranium mining. India can produce more Uranium from local sources.

Second, India is a HOT country and solar energy is better alternative compared to nuclear. India has not yet exhausted hydel and wind power potential which must be harnessed before nuclear.

Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and are large targets in case of war.

Excessive focus on nuclear power is illogical.

There is no need to worry about NSG.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

If there is a snub and india implements the thorium program in the future
It will keep india out of the uranium market and countries like australia will lose a great opportunity
For trade

Human mind is such that we can always find alternative way of reaching our goals. As you have mentioned the use of Thorium is the way to go once two reactors are success.

 

[sgarg]

Human mind is such that we can always find alternative way of reaching our goals. As you have mentioned the use of Thorium is the way to go once two reactors are success.

I feel that nuclear power is not the correct way to go. It is better to stop worrying about NSG. The policies of foreign countries cannot be relied upon.

India has huge solar power and wind power potential. The fact is that coastal states (which are ideal for building nuclear power plants) can get most of the power from wind.

I feel that India should invest 40-50 billion$ per year on wind and solar power plants. This is better and more permanent solution.

 

[sasum]

NSG is a club which functions on the principle of unanimity. If even a single country of the 48 member group opposes India's membership into NSG, she cannot be accommodated. At present, China, NewZealand, Ireland, Israel, South Africa and Pakistan are lined up against us. It is anybody's guess whether India will be in NSG.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

All major powers are slowly coming around. India cannot take a stupid step right now and blow it away. 60 years of all kinds of denial mindset cannot be removed in 6 years. That we got this far is an achievement. We can wait for a couple more years. It will not hurt us. The good thing is that we are getting uranium supplies from other countries.

Track, you are wrong when you say we dont need uranium because we have fusion weapons. We need uranium for the fusion weapons in the primary and we needs tons of uranium to power our nuclear subs. This is why the nuke deal is so important. It frees our domestic uranium and enrichment facilities to concentrate on weapons program.

Exactly sir That is the mature response. It is just china who is against us. We can not afford to loose the loads of goodwill and support we have generated. We can not be a state like pakistan who on every second day says " Bamb mar dege". We on the international forum has demonstrated our cold power of a peaceful and powerful, genuine and just nation. We can not loose this impression. Now US with us so as France and Russia. getting good assistance in a very potent TN weapon design should not be a bog problem if at all it is required though i firmly believe that it will not be required. If china oppose us that they will emerge as a rogue nation and loose her impression and emerge as a rogue nation with rogue friends. We are now positioned on a very very high moral ground in the leadership of Modi. We should continue our diplomatic offensive aginst china and make them realized that going against india shall be costlier than maintaining the good relations with them. Modi is fully capable of making china realized that. We are on right track and we should continue to pursue the same even if we witness some short term setbacks. Whatever policy we follow is sure to pay a big dividend on long run.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

NSG is a club which functions on the principle of unanimity. If even a single country of the 48 member group opposes India's membership into NSG, she cannot be accommodated. At present, China, NewZealand, Ireland, Israel, South Africa and Pakistan are lined up against us. It is anybody's guess whether India will be in NSG.

I do not think there are other nations other than china and pakistan. Pakistan is not a nation of NSG so her opposition do not count.