CONTENTS

Sl No. Topic Page No.

1 Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Remarks/Suggestions
 INTRODUCTION
In July 2005, President Bush announced his intention to conclude a peaceful nuclear cooperation
agreement with India. India, which is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), is
considered under U.S. law to be a non-nuclear weapon state, yet has tested nuclear weapons and
has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. For these reasons, the President would need to make
certain waivers and determinations pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) before nuclear
cooperation with a state such as India could proceed.

The Administration proposed legislation (introduced as H.R. 4974/ S. 2429) in March 2006 that,
in addition to providing waivers of relevant provisions of the AEA (Sections 123 a. (2), 128, and
129), would have allowed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India to enter into force without
a vote from Congress, as though it conformed to AEA requirements. In late June, the House
International Relations Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported their
versions of legislation (H.R. 5682 and S. 3709), both of which provide the requisite waivers, retain
the requirement for a joint resolution of Congress for such an agreement to enter into force, and
contain some restrictions. On July 26, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5682 by a vote of 359 to 68.
On November 16, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5682 by a vote of 85 to12, substituting the text of
S. 3709 as an engrossed amendment; the Senate insisted on its amendment, necessitating a
conference to resolve differences between the bills. Neither chamber has voted on conferees, but
this will likely occur the week of December 4, 2006. Given the bill’s apparent high priority for the
Bush Administration, there will likely be significant pressure to complete the process in this
Congress.
 ARTICLE REVIEW

ARTICLE 1

OLIVER MEIER, The US-India Nuclear Deal: The End of Universal Non-Proliferation
Efforts?

The world reacted to India’s policy of developing its own nuclear weapons potential outside
international control mechanisms by terminating nuclear cooperation with India across the board.
German restrictions on nuclear exports to India rest on the provisions of the npt, un Security
Council resolutions, guidelines of the nuclear supply countries, eu joint positions and decisions,
and the Foreign Trade and Payments Law. Similar restrictions also apply to the two other atomic
powers outside the NPT, Israel and Pakistan.

Export controls are, alongside NPT, the second instrument of international efforts to prevent the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. All important supply countries have let it be known in the
Nuclear Suppliers Group that civil nuclear technology will only be delivered to countries which
submit all their facilities to IAEA inspections. This is intended to prevent the recipient from using
the goods for purposes other than those originally intended or to pass them on to third parties.
Shortly after coming to office at the beginning of 2001 the Bush administration decided to cultivate
India as a strategic partner in Asia. The »biggest democracy in the world« was to form a military
and political counterweight vis-à-vis China. Moreover, India is attractive as a market for us
products. If the nuclear deal goes through us firms would have a head start over international rivals
in the state regulated nuclear and defense sectors.

ARTICLE 2

Prashant Hosur, The Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement

Most of the literature that exists on this subject looks at the deal through three angles. The first is
from the viewpoint of nuclear nonproliferation. These writers and scholars are mostly against the
deal because they believe that it clearly undermines the global nonproliferation and disarmament
efforts. As Robert Einhorn, advisor to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, asks, “how can the US
seek exceptions to the rules for India without opening the door to exceptions in less worthy cases—
indeed, without weakening the overall fabric of rules the US worked so hard to create?”4 Similarly,
Daryl Kimball at the Arms Control Association argues that the nuclear deal will free up India’s
existing scarce uranium resources, which could be used to create the largest possible nuclear
weapons arsenal, and that “India’s civil-military separation plan would allow the free flow of
personnel and information between safeguarded and unsafeguarded facilities.”5 Kimball believes
the nuclear deal to be a nonproliferation disaster.

Some scholars opposed to the nuclear deal have argued that this deal will set a precedent for other
countries. They argue that this deal will convince other countries that they can break the rules of
the international community and not only get away with it, but eventually be rewarded for it. The
countries referred to are Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. While this argument has gained
prominence among the opponents of the deal, the argument is simplistic and misleading.

Iran is suspected to be undertaking a nuclear weapons program in spite of being a signatory to the
non proliferation treaty. If this is true, Iran is guilty of dishonesty as it is breaking the rules of the
treaty. North Korea was a signatory to the non proliferation treaty but withdrew from it when it
decided to pursue a nuclear weapons program and the US accused it of enriching uranium for a
weapons program. Furthermore, the infamous Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan has admitted
that North Korea and Iran were both involved in his proliferation network.

ARTICLE 3
ATOMIC ENERGY

The Soviet Union had an extensive atomic energy program. The program included the use of isotopes
as tracers for agricultural research and as ionizing sources for food irradiation, extensive applications
in medicine, so-called peaceful nuclear explosions, and an ambitious effort to build scores of reactors
to produce electrical energy. Under the regime of Josef Stalin the military side of atomic energy was
signicantly more developed than its civilian application. Scientists and workers were gathered into
closed cities to build the rst Soviet atomic bomb detonated in 1949, and to design and assemble tens
of thousands of nuclear warheads. It is not certain what percentage of the nuclear program was civilian
and what percentage was military, but it is clear that the military needs predominated during the Cold
War. It is also dificult to draw a line between military and civilian programs. Nikita Khrushchev and
Leonid Brezhnev made the peaceful atom a centerpiece of their economic development programs.
Development of nuclear reactors
Soviet engineers developed five major kinds of nuclear reactors. One design focused on
compactness, and was intended to be used for propulsion, especially for submarines. The USSR
also employed compact reactors on aircraft carriers, container ships, freighters, and icebreakers,
such as the icebreaker Lenin, which was launched in 1959. Scientists also worked on reactor
propulsion for rockets and jets, and nuclear power packs for satellites. There were several prototype
land-based models, including the TES-3, built in Obninsk, that could be moved on railroad flatbed
cars or on tank treads. In the 1990s, Russian nuclear engineers designed a barge-based, foating
nuclear unit for use in the Far North and Far East.

ARTICLE 4
Dr. M.R. Srinivasan
India’s Atomic Energy Programme

India entered the atomic age, more correctly the nuclear age, on 4 August 1956 when Apsara,
India’s first nuclear reactor, went into operation. This reactor was designed and built by India
with the nuclear fuel supplied from the United Kingdom under a lease agreement. Our second
reactor for research purposes, CIRUS, was built with cooperation with Canada and went into
operation in the early 1960’s.
India’s third nuclear power station came up at Kalpakkam, near Chennai. This station was
designed and built by India, on its own. All the material and equipment were produced in the
country. This was a huge challenge as Indian industry at that time, had no experience in making
complex equipment required for nuclear applications. Special materials like nuclear fuel,
zirconium components and heavy water production required extensive work in the laboratories of
the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). Pilot plants were built and later scaled up to
industrial plants.
Industry had to be trained in special manufacturing processes and novel quality testing
procedures introduced. Thus, when the first unit of the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS)
started up in July 1983, India joined a small group of countries which could design and build
nuclear power units on their own.
Our fourth nuclear power station came up at Narora, on the banks of river Ganga. This site has
experienced earthquakes in the vicinity. So we evolved designs capable of withstanding any
foreseeable earthquake that could visit the site. We also standardized the design of a 220 MW
unit that could be built at a number of sites in the country. The first unit of Narora started up in
October 1989. In the next twenty years, India built and commissioned eleven 220 MW units and
two 540 MW units, all based on its own technology called ‘Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors’.
REMARKS
By reviewing this articles I have come to an conclusion that there are dealings which are going
on all over the world of nuclear energy which is a good things because the nuclear energy is the
power of 21st century which should be given to all the countries to maintain the peace in the
world,
The comparison of both the countries we came to an conclusion that USA is a bit ahead from
India but both the countries share the same interest not to go to war and both the counties want
peace in the world and both the countries are there in the treaty to solve this issue of nuclear
energy.