Edited

After what happened in Iraq and what is happening there, its almost hillarious and the pinncale of sadness to see the history repeating itself.

A very well analysis honestly this MRCA is a mess, You see MRCA was actually supposed to be the Mirage and not twin engined big fighter, also I dont see rational between RFP to Gripen and say to F16 and a RFP to Rafale/EF, these planes are miles apart in their specs.

While it might seem that GOI doesn’t really know what its doing…these planes r indeed miles apart…i think it has a lot to do with their willingness to seem transparent as well having more options on the table when it comes to negotiations.

wow ridiculous, i have never seen such a ignorant person (dont take it as any offence mate ) it is incomprehendable for me that how can someone not comprehend what I’m saying, What I’m saying there cannot be anything crystal clear than the point, The point your making that this deal will free up Indias own Uranium for Weapons use is downright ridiculous.

May be u should take charge of indian efforts to convince all those ignorants including ppl like Jimmy Carter who are not so convinced. But im sure many of us will remain ignorant. BTW, no offence was taken.:)

Regarding my arguments being long how hard they to read? Thats a paltry excuse, are you really willing to abandone your arguments by defaulting?

To be honest i visit a very few forums and get to read very few posts. One thing which i stopped doing after finishing my studies was to get involved in essay/book type discussions:)

As for other nations surely they can go for this deal, IAEA safeguards – foreign fuel – foreign reactor – deal done, like possibly Myanmar. Obviously this deal is a bit more complex than how other nations will get, here there is a comprehensive pact type which spans certain other aspects.

I guess the first one in line will be China-Pakistan deal. Following are couple of articles from Indian sources. While many like myself will continue to express their reservations about any such deal, i dont know what sort of counter-arguments proponents of US/Ind nuke deal will have then. I can only guess, we’d get to hear a lot about imeccable indian track record, and eventually US of A will get what it wants.
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=91044
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=82897b20-2f88-406f-a837-754b6f40f9c2&ParentID=b82b6e77-5649-4a8c-8da4-4c77b18c0613&&Headline=Pak%2c+China+try+to+seal+mirror+deal

PS. Im really through with this discussion. So lets get back to…what was it…oh yeah delay in aircraft carrier.:)

First of all, Its not Indias demands but Indias soveireign right which Us is agreeing to (still even there are problems in the deal), because that was what was agreed upon in the main 123 agreement.

Now, I have told you containing China can be one of the reasons Us moving closer to India (THE DEAL IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY SUCH CONTAIN POLITICS) however we will remain non-alligned and act based on our interests, so if china happens to hostile to our interests and if neutralising that happens to seek better global integration of India with the others be it, I dont see any problem because it is not based on perpetuality but based on Indias interests. The point I have stressed upon.

Indian sovereign right?
Come on Joey mate, what are u talking about? Where was the respect for those sovereign rights for past years? Why do u think the necons in Washington (many of whom have gone now) who have no respect for a multipolar world as well as a number of multinational institution/treaties (facts speak for themselves) give a toss about Indian sovereign rights now???

Regarding the deal being ‘independent’ of any such contain politics, do u really expect India and US to write that in their contract?:) Of course, India would take whatever steps she takes based on her interest, i have no doubt…but so does every other country including US of A and China. However, India know fully well that US is bending backward to accommodate Indian wishes and that India in one way or another will have to reciprocate that…US is much bigger of a power than India is right now, and as the saying goes (to the effect) ‘if u want tall friends u better have higher doors’:)

What US interest? Can you show me a single letter from the 123 agreement that talks of ‘changing foreign policy stance’ ?

I dont think India and US are that stupid…do u?:)
Years ago, India the famous Arafat/Saddam supporter (while it was the champion of non-aligned movement) did not have much to say about recent Israeli actions in Lebanon or Palestine and is rather mute when it comes to giving mere vocal support to its old brotherly nation of Iran (while it still considers itself the champion of non-aligned movement). I wonder why that is so? Has something changed over the years? Has Indian foreign policy/ies perhaps been getting re-adjusted to accommodate new indian interest? What do u think?

Do you realise, India has already felt threatened from China (check the examples i have given of chinese moves against India) , so all this talks of china is not harming Indias interest is hogwash. You want us not to counter those by whatever means, based on the perception there will be a counter-counter and both can work together? , if ‘can work together’ why China is right ATM acting hostile against Indias interests? or that is okay with you?

The question so should not be US will gain from this, but should be is China ready yet to act as a equal partner with us? NO and her action speaks larger than words, thus this equal co-operation is still some far away.

REMEMBER, in my very first post i have made it clear,

Strategic competitor then it is as i mentioned in previous post.
As i have said to the effect b4, the two fastest growing economies best reslove their differences amongst themselves (in whatever way possible). When the giants who will have to be neighbours start dreaming about superiority and/or blame each other for their differences, they are usually not the primary benefactors. Its always someone else.

First of all This deal is not a long term deal with termination clause from both side at any time with 1 year approval, secondly yes it is in Indias long term interest which (the interests) will determined by how India will shape up in next decade, Its useless to speculate rest, We are not going to import LWR’s forever but rather plan to get 8~10 LWR’s. Anyways I’d like to know the points on which Indias long term interest can be questioned by this deal and its relevance from you.

How long would these 8-10 LWRs take? Would that make India fully independent in terms of its nuclear tech needs?:)

we all know such things, permanent interest is everything the reason I stressed yet again and if indias permanent interest calls for to neutralise chinas hostile actions to India and if that benefits someone else, let it be.

And i was merely questioning the wisdom of this.:)

Did you care to read the useful reply I posted taking the time? Will you please go back and read how i absolutely nullified your point the same point your repeating? If you have something to counter the points I raised to nullify it then please do so instead of repeating the same.

Come on Joey. So that India already has enough material to make as many weapons its wants, is it justifiable for another country to provides it with even greater means to do so even though India is a non-signatory of NPT? While this argument might be sufficient for an Indian, it is definitely not for a non-Indian. Does that matter to India? Perhaps no. But there is a huge potential of this argument being used in future by a number of countries. Last time i checked ppl like former president Carter were opposed to this deal on similar grounds and they probably are aware of India’s capability better than me or u. Anyway since many are opposed to the deal on such ground, is India willing to address their concerns by inserting solid guarantees (and how) that any know how obtained through this civilian nuke cooperation will not be used to advance their weaponisation programmes?

Yes there you have a point, India is non-NPT yet US is going ahead with this deal, Thats the credit of India diplomacy, plain and simple. HOWEVER MAKE NO MISTAKE the point that THIS DEAL WILL AID IN INDIAS NUKE PROGRAMME IS DOWNRIGHT INCORRECT. If not prove it. so in other way it DOES not violates NPT instead integrated India inside the non-ploriferation regime, while in other way (like from Pakistans POV) you may say it is US double standards.

Its more of geopolitical situation than credit to indian diplomacy:) As i said b4 tell me how could u guarantee that know how obtained through this could not be used in advancing Indian weaponisation programme?

From my point of view I’ll argue we tested a nuke in 1974, anyone who tested nuke before 1967 are defacto NWS, we call it discriminatory because we have had a strong base of nuclear and particle physics even before independence and we acquired nuke bomb technology in and around and before the same time NPT came into force. We started our nuke weapons work before NPT came into force thus being the only nation to do so and left out of NPT. You need to remember for Indian PM’s naivety we did not got a seat in UNSC as well. We lost chance of being NWS and in UNSC. There are many such points, based on the reason we call NPT discriminatory, and based on our record call for revision of NPT.

By becoming a strategic competitor to China, India will have to shelve those UNSC seat for a while:)

First of all This deal is not a long term deal with termination clause from both side at any time with 1 year approval, secondly yes it is in Indias long term interest which (the interests) will determined by how India will shape up in next decade, Its useless to speculate rest, We are not going to import LWR’s forever but rather plan to get 8~10 LWR’s. Anyways I’d like to know the points on which Indias long term interest can be questioned by this deal and its relevance from you.

One simple point Joey.

US of A is bending backwards to accommodate Indian demands. I know US is in a rather precarious situation as of now but she still remains the lone superpower. Therefore, once again the question is Why??? I dont consider myself by any means an expert on such issues, but i think it’d be safe bet to say that most regional experts would mention US plans to contain China in this regard. Now China is not a small country but a major power broker that is to rise further in near future and there isnt much doubt about it. More important to India, the two are neighbours and will remain so unlike US and India. What i fail to understand is how India will be able to balance its foregin policy vis-a-vis China and US.

There should absolutely be no doubt that US wants another power in this region not only to act as a balancer to China but also to safeguard USA’s interest here (as US is so stretched out), and hence all this talk of a strategic partnership with India along great offers/deals. Traditionally India has been a leader of non-aligned countries and hence a number of its policies have been at odds with those of US. What i fail to understand is how India will be able to safeguard USA’s intersts in this region without making considerable changes to its own foreign policy, i.e. coming more into alignment with USA’s policy. Alternatively Indian refusal to look after USA’s interest would be deadly blow to any nuclear/similar deals with US. Since India is also a rising power and US needs her, i assume it’d be a give and take policy from both sides. What i fail to understand if India does make certain changes to her foreign policy to accommodate USA’s interest (as US is doing for India, i.e. nuclear deal), i dont know how India would be able to assure China, and if China feels threatened they would undoubtedly take steps to counter indian policies. All in all, India and China, the two giants of Asia that have a great chance at becoming global powers in near future have nothing to gain by antagonising each other (only US would gain as it wants neither India nor China to become a ‘real’ competitor) and a lot to gain from cooperating each other.

Finally let me quote British prime minister Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston…”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” I can quote so many examples but im sure u could think of many.

I dont really know what defines non-ploriferation for USA (you know what I’m speaking off), but to say this deal goes against US non-ploriferation vis-a-vis India in making it a ploriferator w.r.t. the deal is incorrect.

India has ‘one of’ the strongest non-ploriferation records, now dont show me what non ploriferation idiots claim about all this, most of them bar some points are incorrect and if you go to genuine source pertaining to the same, you’ll get the factual inaccuracies in painting and framing the overall picture.

I’d quote one expert Dr. Chidambaram who is Chief scientific advisor to PM states in a article from here in a interview recently ,

No doubt India has strong non-proliferator record, but one canot forget how India managed to get the technology in first place. As i said before, this deal (in no way on earth) can provide any guarantee that more Indian land resources would not be diverted to Indian weaponisation programme once India can import nuclear fuel, unless all indian reactors (present and future) are placed under IAEA observation, something to which India would never agree. Whether or not India has an impeccable non-prolif record, matter of the fact is that India is a non-signatory of NPT and hence all this fuss. Since US cannot provide any guarantees about a non-signatory of NPT’s weaponisation programme and is yet willing to go ahead with this deal, this could be seen as indirect proliferation, and WILL be seen by many in future. A number of countries would sign similar deals in not too far a future, and neither India nor US would have any moral/ethical ground to object to any such deal…all this would add to proliferation.

As for US interest in this deal, there are plenty, first of all they need to balance the trade interest, secondly, Their economy is knowledge based economy and based on creating things and India to them is a huge pool of cheap knowledge and also talented and well educated manpower, This is one of my concern whether this deal will square north block a bit on how they will tackle this brain drain issue without proper policy changes which is happening, because I can see, to have a global share of things in coming decade we need huge manpower for ourselves. Thirdly, US cannot afford to alienate us on Chinas growing importance and sees us a economic counterbalance to that of China, Fourthly, perhaps US wants us to integrate into the way the anglo-saxon world functions before we try to make space for our own and create headeche for them forming a block with China, Fifth the exact opposite of the above, US themselves wants to move a bit far from EU in long term and needs/wants to come close to India.

All these are possibilities and each of them if discussed on can fill pages, and there can be several reasons formulated like that.

Im sure one can think of other possibilities, but some of them are more likely than others.:)

Whether India should buy anything from US or not will be decided over coming days/months. Unfortunately for indian armed forces, a lot of this has absolutely nothing to do with their requirement and all to do with the current geopolitical situation around the globe.

In very simple words, US (due to its overstretched military power and all sort of issues in WAT besides other factors) desperately needs a good friend & ally in this part of Asia now to safeguard US interest including acting as a ‘balancer’ aganist an increasingly rising Chinese power. OTOH, India also needs full US support and goodwill to become and be recognised as a true world power. I have absolutely no doubt anymore that under current circumstances a lot of politicians in US would be more than willing to do anything to accomodate Indian requirements. To achieve this sort of formiddable US support, however, India would undoubteldy need to adjust certain aspects of its foreign policy, and ‘in reality’ will have to give up on its non-aligned status. I mean i can hardly imagine president Ahmedinejad coming to special Indian ocassions as chief guest unlike some previous iranian/other counterparts.

Anyway, those who are interested might find the following a little informative, though they have nothing to with Gorshkov.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH22Df02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH23Df04.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070813/bs_afp/italymilitary;_ylt=Ap7X50hTrFtgCByD2RaXcINvaA8F
Italy sees cut in Eurofighter order

MILAN (AFP) – Italy will “probably” cut its order of 121 Eurofighter jets because the planes have become more expensive, the defence ministry said Monday.

Rome has already bought 75 Eurofighters in two rounds of purchases. It was expected to take delivery of another 46 after 2012 in a third round of purchases, but that was now in doubt, a spokesman said.

………………