Talk:India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

I added the criticism section to this entry. I'm currently taking a class at the University of Washington wherein Thomas Graham Jr. is a part time instructor. I wasn't quite sure how to cite his argument from 11/16/06.

This does not contain how the nuclear fuel would be tranferred to India

Dead citation[edit]

The 66 citation about Canada is currently dead. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's uh-fixed.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

US or U.S.?[edit]

The title of the article uses US but the article text uses U.S. and I am sure this to a reader would seem like an article written by a schizophrenic :P Is there one usage that should be preferred both for the title and the text? I think the best choice is US, what do you think? NerdyNSK (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically it ought to be U.S. as conventional grammar says an acronym should be with the '.' Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not that way for other abbreviations. United Kingdom is "UK" and United Nations is "UN." But "U.S." is used only with periods and only as an adjective. As a noun, "United States" should be spelled out. NPguy (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Technically, grammatically, it should be used for UN and UK too. Lihaas (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How Many Reactors?[edit]

There has been some back and forth on how many nuclear power plants India has. The current number is 17, but India has 5 more under construction and two more planned. I haven't been able to find one source that pulls all this together. Perhaps someone else can do some research and find one. NPguy (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A fairly good source is here. It says India has six under construction and nine proposed though..--70.236.79.188 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

India's "aspirations"?[edit]

"While India still harbours aspirations of being recognised as a nuclear power before considering signing the NPT[citation needed] as a nuclear weapons state (which would be possible if the current 1967 cutoff in the definition of a "nuclear weapon state" were pushed to 1975)"

This is not true and is purely original research. No politician or official of India has ever made such an attitude known. Successive governments of India have been against the NPT for its discrimination and have never wanted to join the treaty as part of the "nuclear haves".

India wants and has always wanted the NPT to be replaced by an agrreement with a time-frame for destruction of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons by all countries including US and Russia. Please build consensus on this and remove the above statement.59.96.30.153 (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Should never have been there concerning it's uncited POV statement, where the link doesn't work. Lihaas (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-starter?[edit]

UK colloquialism, I was there 7 years and I can only barely remember what it means. Certainly isn't clear from the context. Was going to put [not specific enough to verify] on it, but that isn't quite right. If someone knows what the correct WP tag is, I would appreciate learning that too. Anarchangel (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationale behind agreement: competition for conventional energy[edit]

I think this section should be removed. It creates the impression that the report was written for the Bush administration in order to give them a fact base for the agreement. However in fact the report was written for the Non Proliferation Policy Education Centre based in Washington. There is no way we can know if the Bush administration used or did not use the report for their decision (there is also no reference for this statement). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otheruser82 (talkcontribs) 10:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I will delete it now, I just read the report and it actually argues the opposite, so this paragraph is factually completely wrong. Following a part of the conclusion of the report: "In sum, the economic and resource arguments for the U.S.-India Civil Cooperation Initiative are overstated. Nuclear energy will not significantly reduce India’s reliance on foreign fossil fuels, is not vital to sustain India’s economic growth through 2032, and does not necessarily provide the best option for environmental improvements and energy independence." Otheruser82 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

negative point of nuculear deal in india.[edit]

my first point is- with the aggrement of this deal this is calrify that india was not used the nuclear product which will purchased from america to making a nuclear wepons. my second point is the power genarate with the help of nuclear product is so costly,i think it per unit coast is RS14. if we genarate the power from renewable source of energy like water .the coast of per unit is nearly about RS 1.their are so many dams in india which not worked properly if we repairs the dams it is more useful. thirds point is those countries whose releation of america is not good then india have not allowed to make their releationship of that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.36.250 (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

articles abotu particular laws are to be named after the official name of the law, not per the synthesis of media or editors. Redirects are fine, but the actualy page should be the law.Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was this article renamed???[edit]

The Hyde Act is only one part of the deal. The article deals with other parts as well. Naming the article for only one part is misleading at best. Was any poll ever taken? I strongly recommend changing the name back to a more accurate one. NPguy (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas has replied on my discussion page that

articles on laws (which was the basis for, other info is perfectly fine to add to it) are generally names after the official title. (ive worked on a couple of us laws thats why i though so for this) but i wont object to your revert anyhoo.Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is based on the mistaken assertion that the article is about a single law. In fact, it is about a series of actions beginning with a Bush-Singh joint statement in 2005 and followed by the Hyde Act, the agreement for cooperation, the NSG exception, and the IAEA safeguards agreement. So I plan to revert the renaming, once I remind myself how. NPguy (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not too sure if the word Initiative is appropriate any longer because the deal has been signed and the entire process completed. I suggest Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation. Indo-US and not US-Indo or US-India because of their alphabetical order (in case you are thinking). Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point, but at least until the liability issue is resolved, key international partners are refraining from engaging in nuclear cooperation with India. So I think "initiative" still applies. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong statement[edit]

The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Cooperation Act of 2006,[1][2] also known as the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal,[citation needed] refers to a bilateral accord on civil nuclear cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of India.

This is a wrong statement... replaced it with appropriate statement and citation. Too many changes were made to the Hyde act while writing the 123 agreement. Do you think the communist party in India would agree otherwise?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I also made the following changes for the bellow mentioned reasons:

1) The nuclear deal was widely seen[by whom?] as a legacy-building effort by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh.[citation needed] --> Replaced with a better statement.

2) But while the deal had to pass muster with the U.S. Congress twice (once when the Hyde Act was passed in late 2006 to amend U.S. domestic law and then when the final deal-related package was approved in October 2008), Singh blocked the Indian Parliament from scrutinizing the deal. The deal proved very contentious in India and threatened at one time to topple Singh's government, which survived a confidence vote in Parliament in July 2008 by roping in a regional party as a coalition partner in place of the leftist bloc that had bolted.

a) This appears to be a politically motivated statement
b) We can accept such statements only when they are backed up with references and citations...
c) Don't see how these statements can find place in an article of this nature.

3) In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974 (called "peaceful nuclear explosion" and explicitly not for "offensive" first strike military purposes but which could be used for "peaceful deterrence").[citation needed]

a) why was this statment important in the paragraph? Moreover, the author could not rovide any citation to substanciate his claim!
b) If you want to make hair-raising and controversial statements please back them up with proof! Can't let wikipedia to be used as a forum for personal opinion! I did try to find citations for these lines, btw...

4) Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclear weapons tests in 1998,[3][verification needed] it continued to find its civil nuclear program isolated internationally.

a) Removed Verify source ... wiley.com is a respected enough journal.
b) Please be specific before tagging lines this way! what verification do you need on this?

However, members of the IAEA safeguards staff have made it clear that Indian demands that New Delhi be allowed to determine when Indian reactors might be inspected could undermine the IAEA safeguards system.[citation needed] The reason for this is to restrict development of nuclear weapons and to negotiate with India indirectly to ratify the NPT using another mechanism.[citation needed]

a) Please quote citations citations before making such statements. This appears to be some kind of a hearsay information which can't be easily substantiated with citations from credible sources. I assumed good faith and tried my best to justify these statments and failed. The same is true for all the above statments as well!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly good edits, though you will see that I have changed some of them. The reason for the "verify source" tag is that the article is not freely available on the web. I was asking for someone to look at the text of the source and verify that it supports the claim.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A Pretty Useless Deal for India and Probably not worth the paper its written on[edit]

Unless I am mistaken, NO nuclear hardware has been transferred from the US to India. If it has been, the article should state this somewhere to provide an indication of what nuclear technology has been provided to India. It does seem as if there is a LOT of hulabaloo about India getting access to nuclear technology, but no bottom line (ie: it is April 2016 now, and Google searches reveal that India has been given NOTHING). Surely the Indians (& Americans) can do better than blowing steam for *10* years for an agreement which is yielding nothing. Afterall, what's the point in writing an agreement, and publicising it without providing anything substantial? I suppose we should all do ourselves a favour and realise that this agreement is not worth s**t. The Indians might be better off directing their political energies towards enhancing the technology and infrastructures that they already have for a better nuclear industry. I imagine that intelligent Indians would strongly question the economic and other investments which have already been made in placing many of India's nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards. It would benefit India's defence, and the sanity of scientists/managers/other skilled tradesmen, if administrative hurdles which lead nowhere were removed. A smart onlooker might deduce that material progress on the nuclear deal is being deliberately stalled to stall India's own indigenous development. True, India MIGHT benefit from US technology **IF** the US provided India with any, but India would also benefit from not placing its reactors under IAEA safeguards, which certainly must limit India's freedom to use its nuclear industry for its national interest. After 10 years (or longer) this does not seem to be the case, unless someone out there can show a link which indicates that US reactors or reactor technology has been sold to India. Please do correct me if I am wrong - but I suspect I am not. ASavantDude (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Archives link doesn't work[edit]

I have tried accessing the archives link, but it seems as if this doesn't work. ASavantDude (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)