This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The first section in the background seems to repeat itself.
India[...] have not signed the NPT, arguing that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. India eventually refused to sign the NPT [...]instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty only legitimized the continuing possession and multiplication of nuclear stockpiles by those few states possessing them.
Seems a bit redundant to have basically the same information twice. AndySnow ( talk) 09:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a section on the opposition from Left parties and their threat to withdraw support to the government unless operationalisation of the deal is halted. Will add sources soon. Amit@ Talk 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
can someone please check the following claim:
Finally, in a detailed column dated July 31st in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens detailed how the Indian government has been helping Iran's military and energy sector and how former Indian officials had been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State for assisting Iran's nuclear and rocket programs. He also noted that increasing base-load generation with Coal or nuclear would only increase India's appetite for peak-load generation systems that are generally fired with gas or oil from the Persian Gulf and Iran.
thanks -- Jeroje 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone had suggested a merge from the "Indo-US nuclear deal" article. I have done that (it was just a single line) and added a redirect there to this article. Amit@ Talk 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Campaign Against the Agreement
A campaign has been started by the "Campaign for Sovereignty and Democracy". They have set up a websitewww.strugglesonline.org[24] for this purpose which is claimed to be a place for critical examination of the deal. The articles contained in it by and large expose the dangers with in the Agreement.
this looks trivial, there are many blogs which are doing the same, should there be a section for this ? Isnt it automatic that an issue of national importance will be picked up by many bloggers and open forums ? I already reverted an attempt to advertise the same website once.
Jeroje 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a crucial meeting coming up on 15th march, where I guess the stance of the left parties will be officially clear on 123 deal. Jeroje ( talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No major break throughs were achieved in the meeting,(unfortunately) == Hotsshot ( talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ==
Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. They're video interviews taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Jossejonathan ( talk) 08:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The CPI(M) is described as far-left. Indian Maoists better deserve this as they are engaged in an armed struggle. CPI(M) is also described as west-phobic too. Any references please?? The claim that CPI(M) is Trotskyist is also unfounded. And finally attributing CIA documents to claim that CPI(M) supports China is really lopsided. It should be noted that the Chinese Communist Party was bitterly opposed to CPI(M) policies and even supported the armed Naxalite movement.
Overall, the paragraph seems to be really biased and based on no valid references. I'm doing a cleanup.
Please add some worthy references if you want to put back these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm retaining most of the links though so that anyone can judge the worthiness of the material provided. Also I'd like to remove the word Anti-American, as Indian Left has never shown hostility towards the American people or a society, but rather to policies of American government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 ( talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This section seems very awkward and out of place. I'm sure there are more criticisms from the United States that deserve more coverage than this one thing listed there. The 'easy' dismissal that rests soley on one person's book seems to have too much weight there too
64.8.68.116 ( talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. The text in this section is presenting the views of Ashley Tellis, a leading proponent of the nuclear deal. It reads as a rebuttal of criticism, but the criticism itself is missing. The recent statement by the head of the Arms Control Association and the former UN Under Secretary General for Disarmament labeling the deal "A Nonproliferation Disaster" [1] should be featured, as should an earlier statement by many leading nonproliferation experts [2]. The section heading should be changed to reflect that the criticism is not limited to the United States [3].
The rebuttal by Tellis should be removed an perhaps put into a section on support for the agreement. But allowing Tellis to rebut a strawman violates Wikipedia standards for neutrality. NPguy ( talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
de-hyphenization? what the hell does that mean? what the hell is hyphenization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.201.234 ( talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This article hardly talks about the Hyde Act, a US legislation, and is mainly centered on the details of the Indo-US agreement, its rational etc. Shouldn't the article title be the Indo-US nuclear deal or words to that effect. Hyde Act can redirect here.-- Shahab ( talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I had a chance to go through this editorial by a Science advisor to Indira Gandhi. I dont know much of the person's credentials, but I had a feeling that he raises some important concerns. Any one of you think that any of his analysis is credible to be included here? Docku ( talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Could not find any reference to this firm or study :-( what is the source for this piece of information? Tellkarthik ( talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
He is NOT a nuclear scientist by profession -- 203.199.213.67 ( talk) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Congress MP Jayanthi Natarajan's article from Gulfnews.com is quoted in the lead section. As I understand, she has written an editorial column in a news website (Is it just website?). It is wrong to take her opinion out from the editorial and make it sound like that is the Government policy. Dock Hi 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article asserts that India aspires to be recognized as a NWS under the NPT. To supporrt this claim, it cites an article by Selig Harrison, but that article doesn't support the stated claim. I'm not questioning the claim, but it needs a citation that is (1) reliable and (2) supports the claim. That's why I've put in the notation [citation needed.] NPguy ( talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is becoming longer with numerous details that I am starting to believe that it is deviating far from the crux of the issue which is the agreement itself. I propose to split the article into two.
Article 1: Dealing with the agreement itself including the background, explanation of agreement details and passage in various international bodies including Indian parliament, IAEA, NSG and US Congress.
Article 2: Political passage which involves the support and opposition in India, US and other countries. Dock Hi 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, if you put it like that (Docku) then that's a valid point. Evn PatrickFlaherty thinks the details are necessary. But the worry is that once its split someone will ask for a merger of the two article, no?
btw- Was the link request for my article? I could go looking, but I don't have login access (I read it offline in class). Ill try and pull some up. Lihaas ( talk) 06:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As a passerby, giving the article a cursory examination, it does look like it's dominated by the politics and history of India and the NSG, so yeah I'd say that should be in a separate article. - Fredgoat ( talk) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
if a finance minister and a defence minister's view can't be taken as "official" / "govt. view" , then what else is? the most important point being missed is that these were not private opinions and were infact made on behalf of a govt. facing a trust vote on the floor of the parliament. Cityvalyu ( talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
if anyone finds a citation stating "ambiguity" on india's soverign decision making status being harmed, please feel free to quote..but inserting this personal PoV as a general observation without citation smacks of obsession with certain lies! (please see references to the contrary in the article and adequate explanations in edit history also) Cityvalyu ( talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
which classification system classifies "pariah" and "non pariah" status? is it official / UN mandated/ IAEA's view/ NSG view/ NPT signatories' view?? why cant some (i am desisting from naming the obvious editor) stop using derogatory comments unworthy of being mentioned in wiki? (do wikipedians and wiki project admin. favour violating sc/st atrocities act (in india) that prohibits the use of the word 'pariah' in a derogatory fashion?)..even if editors insist on reinserting, please enlighten us in talk page before using such "english" (copy paste plagiarism violation of someone's article available on net? or is it considered good "engish" by proponents of the same? ).. Cityvalyu ( talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
np guy's edit in the present version(see time Cityvalyu ( talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)) incorporates "..except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement"..
but, as far as the "123 agreement" draft that was released by both countries, there was no mention of iran or nuclear testing ban / prevention clauses (-the contentious provisions of hyde act) anywhere in it! so , it means that the contentious provisions that overreached its mandate and scope (and those that infringed on india's sovereignity) were CONSCIOUSLY OMITTED in the 123 agreement draft. so, not "all" of the hyde act's "requirements were incorporated"- only those that matched the 2005 joint statement were incorporated..please check the fine print to know what i am writing..
further the act per se has no mandate to prescribe USA / India on any preventive action on any issue icluding iran relations and nuclear testing..nevertheless its clauses can be construed as prescriptive for further "' reactions' from the US side" AND NOT ANYTHING MORE !
further, a domestic hyde act plays no role in "interpreting the provisions" of an international treaty..the act is an enabling guide for USA to drafting the treaty AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT can be inferred (esp. on interpreting)!
i feel that the phrase lacks citation and does not represent the truth / clarity ..so, i am intending to either remove the quoted phrase or restore the previous version - after considering responses on this issue.... Cityvalyu ( talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
" . . . except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement . . .."
The first part says that if provisions of the Hyde Act have been incorporated into the 123 agreement, they are binding on India as well as the United States. That should be obvious and uncontroversial. It applies whether the provisions have been written into the 123 agreement directly or incorporated by reference, i.e. by a mention in the 123 agreement of the Hyde Act. The second is a standard principle of legal interpretation. Where the wording is unambiguous, interpretation is not an issue. However, most where the wording allows more than one interpretation, a new legal instrument should be interpreted in the context of other relevant legal instruments in place at the time. For example, the provisions in Article 14 of the 123 agreement for termination of the agreement and cessation of cooperation have to be understood in the light of relevant U.S. legal requirements. Similarly, the safeguards provisions of Article 10.4 of the 123 agreement should be read in light of the U.S. legal requirement for fallback safeguards regardless of whether the IAEA is applying those safeguards. NPguy ( talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
As long it is not uncited analysis. You can say so verbatim by either citing another source or the text of the document you find relevant. That should be good, and fair. Lihaas ( talk) 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is currently under the NSG waiver section, but i think it goes beyond this. I's analysis that is more suited to a 'controversy' section, if you must. Where would it be more appropriate?
"The wording of the US draft for carving out an exemption for India from the to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group's rules (called "guidelines") seeks to irrevocably tether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. India would be brought under a wider non-proliferation net, with the US draft tying it to compliance with the entire set of NSG rules. India is acquiescing to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. Instead of the "full" civil nuclear cooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, India's access to civil nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies will be restricted through the proposed NSG waiver." Lihaas ( talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The ASA links are not external links appropriate. They can be cited as analysis if the article is credible, but as an external links as per the rule #1 in Wikipedia's what to avoid link. The whitehouse link (much to my surprise too) is an analysis of the US exec's reading (and pushing) of the deal. It is not a an outside reference beyond citable material (as in official texts) the rest as good though. Lihaas ( talk) 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
as the reason for removing the links. The full text of Howard Berman's letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and a recent draft of the NSG proposal both aren't being completely covered in the article and are from reliable sources. Multiple outside analyses from different perspectives would be appropriate for the external links section..Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article
Outside analysis is always good no doubt, but more as sources to the article than 'external links.' anyway's we seems to have reached a conclusion. But there are a whole host of websites with lines of advertisements in this section ;) Lihaas ( talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
John Rood is described as "the head of the US delegation" and "Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security" here. I'm not sure whether there are two separate positions, another official is filling in for this negotation, etc. but it would be good to use the most recent and clear description for Stratford as possible.-- 99.1.99.177 ( talk) 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A fair amount of this appears to be redundant with the NSG waiver section, so it may make sense to move all of this under the NSG waiver section.-- 134.68.77.116 ( talk) 18:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read the text of draft waiver and the NSG waiver section of this article, and I find it hard to see how the article section relates to the waiver text. Rather, it appears to reflect Indian fears about the subtext of the waiver. To my eye, they seem to be misinterpretations. Perhaps the section could be split into a very short description of the waiver, followed by a section of Indian reactions. NPguy ( talk) 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it better to put an underconstruction or current event banner on the section? Lihaas ( talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Just saw the following edit: "The draft did not require India to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, leaving India with no obligations not to conduct another nuclear test. [1]"
I think it would be better to cite the part of the document that makes this case instead of rehashing open words that are likely to opinion based on who supports what case. I mean this may very well be true, but different sources often interpret differently. If this is case, there certainly has to be some part of the draft does say at the very least something to that effect. the draft does have a link here. Lihaas ( talk) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&diff=236119776&oldid=236119702 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&diff=236119702&oldid=236073348
Where's the removed info from these 2 edits gone?
Was there something missing here? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&diff=236049073&oldid=236047853 Lihaas ( talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
On 03 september 2008, Congressman Howard Berman released the US State Department responses to questions which the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked about the US-India Nuclear Agreement in October 2007. The correspondence concerned 45 highly technical questions that members of Congress enquired about the deal with India. The answers were considered so sensitive, particularly because debate over the agreement in India could have toppled the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that the State Department requested they remain secret even though they were not classified. Berman, said he made the answers public because, if NSG approval is granted, the U.S-India deal soon would be submitted to Congress for final approval and he wanted to assure that the US Congress has the relevant information. [2]
Hey guys. Shouldn't the NSG waiver be featured on the latest news on the front page? 122.162.56.230 ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Some editor or editors recently deleted much of the discussion and essentially all of the substance of the IAEA and NSG deliberations, with the argument that they were out of date. While this is a newsworthy page, it is not just for the latest news. I think a large part much of that text should be restored as important historical background. NPguy ( talk) 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Put up a tag so someone can. doesn't take too long. Lihaas ( talk) 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, have requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India." What hyphen? Google shows several references confirming the U.S. supports de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India, but neither this article nor a dictionary anything I Googled explains what hyphen is to be removed. The word has remained in the article unchallenged since this edit in 2006. Art LaPella ( talk) 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
whats with the page move? no discussion for it? what is it COMMONLY known as? Lihaas ( talk) 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The 66 citation about Canada is currently dead. NerdyNSK ( talk) 12:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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)
The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Cooperation Act of 2006, [3] [4] 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.
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
4) Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclear weapons tests in 1998, [5] verification needed it continued to find its civil nuclear program isolated internationally.
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
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 01:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
References
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
I have tried accessing the archives link, but it seems as if this doesn't work. ASavantDude ( talk) 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)