Thank you for the e-mai. It's highly educational. I would not comment much.
However, I must say that the politicians resort to bias opinion against any
issues for baking their own cakes. But, we being independent observers,
should not have own opinion for all the issues whether they are political,
religious or social. I admire you for that. Talk to you next time.
>From: "Chandu Sambasiva Rao" <srchandu@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: AndhraOne@googlegroups.com
>To: AndhraOne <AndhraOne@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Fwd: fyi: Nuclear reactors today, what next?
>Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:19:36 -0500
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: somk <somk@comcast.net>
>Date: Feb 21, 2006 10:10 PM
>Subject: fyi: Nuclear reactors today, what next?
>To: Som Karamchetty <somk@comcast.net>
>
> http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88349
>
>*NIXON TO CHINA, BUSH TO INDIA*
>
>
>
>*Nuclear reactors today, what next?*
>
>
>
>*The political leadership must firmly protect the sovereignty of Indian
>science, says Vasant Gowariker*
>
> *VASANT GOWARIKER
><http://www.indianexpress.com/about/feedback.html?url=http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88349&title=Nuclear%20reactors%20today,%20what%20next?>
>*
>
>
>
>**
>
>Posted online: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 0000 hours IST
>
>
>
> I once headed ISRO's Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. So, India's launch
>vehicles is a subject of my interest. Which causes me to ask: after America
>sorts out the nuclear deal with India, what next? Launch vehicles?
>
>My apprehension stems from one crucial invariant. The two totally diverse
>mindsets. Some historical events in the nuclear area will throw light on
>the
>western mindset and methodology. The facts are freely available in the
>public domain and I have only put them together.
>
>"On July 24, I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of
>unusual destructive force," says Harry Truman in his book, *Year of
>Decisions* (1955). Yes, the momentous test that led to the actual bombing
>of
>Hiroshima was only casually mentioned to an ally. The British foreign
>minister, Anthony Eden, tells just a wee bit more: "On the question of when
>Stalin was to be told, it was agreed that President Truman should do this
>after conclusion of one of our meetings. He did so on July 24th so briefly
>that Mr Churchill and I, who were covertly watching, had some doubts
>whether
>Stalin had taken it in. His (Mr Stalin's) response was a nod of the head
>and
>a brief 'Thank you'. No comment.'' (*The Reckoning: The Memoirs of Anthony
>Eden, Earl of Avon*, 1965.)
>
>To Eden's observation, Chur-chill adds: ''As we were waiting for our cars I
>found myself near Truman. 'How did it go?' I asked. 'He never asked a
>question,' he replied. I was certain therefore that at that date Stalin had
>no special knowledge of the vast process of research upon which the United
>States and Britain had been engaged for so long.'' (*Triumph and Tragedy*,
>1953.)
>
>However, Soviet Marshal Zhukov's comments speak volumes for the western
>wheel and deal strategy: "Truman informed Stalin that the United States now
>possessed a bomb of exceptional power without, however, naming it the
>atomic
>bomb... Both Churchill and many other Anglo-American authors subsequently
>assumed that Stalin had really failed to fathom the significance of what he
>had heard. In actual fact, on returning to his quarters after this meeting,
>Stalin, in my presence, told Molotov about his conversation with Truman.
>Molotov reacted almost immediately, 'Let them. We will have to talk it over
>with Kurchatov and get him to speed things up.' I realised that they were
>talking about research on the atomic bomb.'' (The Memories of Marshal
>Zhukov, 1971.)
>
>Truman sounded very casual and brief while speaking to Stalin. But, he
>effervesces in his diary the next day where he records that the US had
>discovered the most terrible and destructive bomb ever in human history.
>
>Most American scientists, academicians, intellectuals and politicians
>supported the use of atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it was ''in
>the best interest of the US''. The corollary is obvious: if, for instance,
>protecting American interests requires crossing international borders,
>cross
>international borders! Even the international law contained in the Hague
>Convention that ''the right of belligerent to adopt means of injuring the
>enemy is not unlimited'' was scrutinised by the US Senate from the same
>consideration of American interests, taking three long years to ratify it.
>
>Is the Indian mindset any different? Let us see. The then US president,
>Bill
>Clintion, visited India in 2000. While addressing the Indian Parliament, he
>said that his country had realised one thing — that this whole business of
>nuclear weapons is a dreadful affair. So, he said, America destroyed 13,000
>atomic weapons between 1988 and 2000. The American action was certainly
>laudable as these weapons could have reduced to ashes the entire planet
>several times over!
>
>But how come America allowed 13,000 nuclear weapons to be accumulated in
>the
>first place, only to be subsequently destroyed? Wasn't the political
>leadership aware of the stockpile? Bill Clinton's energy secretary, Hazel
>O'Leary, answered this in a press conference. She said that people like her
>tend to get immersed in an atmosphere of secrecy, so much and for so long,
>that many times the government itself remains in the dark about many
>secrets
>of this nation. Insofar as the plutonium stock is concerned, she said, she
>will have to keep revising the figure she just released, as more and more
>plutonium comes to light. (*The New York Times*, December 7, 1993.)
>
>From1945 to 1988, out of whatever plutonium America produced, less than
>half was used in the 13,000 atomic weapons Clinton said America destroyed.
>That means more than 13,000 nuclear weapons are still in the magazine out
>of
>the 1945-1988 production lot. What about after 1988? Have they stopped
>plutonium production? There is no report of the seven plutonium plants in
>the US having stopped production. In such a situation, the stockpile of the
>weapons must now be going through the roof of the US magazine! No wonder
>the
>energy secretary confessed she didn't — and wouldn't — know the exact
>figures.
>
>When Clinton said that America destroyed 13,000 weapons, many of our
>parliamentarians, as good hosts, applauded. That's a part of our culture,
>our mindset. Wherever the president went, people jostled to shake hands
>with
>him. What was not realised was that destroying 13,000 weapons in 12 years
>without a break meant America was getting rid of three bombs every day.
>What
>it destroyed in just two days was what India produced, just for
>proto-testing, in 26 years. And yet, each of our nuclear reactors is asked
>to be subjected to international inspection.
>
>In the midst of the technological complexity and the two diverse mindsets,
>nuclear issues are best left to the concerned scientists. This is precisely
>what Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi consistently did. If
>the political leadership doesn't firmly protect the sovereignty of Indian
>science, who will?
>
>*Vasant Gowariker is Satish Dhawan Distinguished Professor at ISRO*
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sambasiva Rao Chandu
>http://groups.google.com/group/AndhraOne
>
>
><< image001.gif >>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AndhraOne" group.
To post to this group, send email to AndhraOne@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to AndhraOne-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AndhraOne
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
No comments:
Post a Comment