economist does not want the indo-us nuke deal to go through

oct 21st

this is the first sign that i have seen that indicates the indo-us nuke deal is good for india.

if arch-atlanticist 'economist' magazine thinks it's bad, then in *must* by definition be good for india.

similarly, since the marxists think it's bad, it must be good for india.

well, kidding aside, i think it's *not* a good deal for india, or at the very least, it's not such a good deal that india needs to salivate over it.

the americans are willing to sell -- indeed they are eager to sell -- nuclear reactors to all and sundry, notably arch-proliferator china. so it's not as though they're doing india a major favor by selling us this stuff. well, if they didn't, india is likely to leapfrog their heavy-water technology and move into fast-breeder technology on a commercial scale. at which point, india has adequate thorium fuel and will not *depend* on the west for enriched uranium -- thus removing a key chokepoint they have. thus, the target of this agreement is really the fast-breeder reactor near chennai.

someone had the not-entirely-ridiculous theory that the tsunami not damaging the kalpakkam plant was a major disappointment to chinese and americans.

someone also had an entertaining theory that the tsunami was caused by a couple of american hydrogen bombs exploded in the sumatra trench, and that one of the targets was indeed the fast breeder reactor at kalpakkam.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5061437