Space, Dreams and Beyond

The word being NUCLEAR. The outrage, the accusations, the anger, all following the 123 agreement of India-US nuclear deal, has put the entire political stability of the nation (India) in question.

The complexities involved in this deal and the convenient interpretation by each political party to make their point in either supporting or opposing it, has made the specifics of this agreement more obscure to common people than Aishwarya Rai is to acting.

This article summarizes the situation quite well and he rightly ends the article with this note

“Both the left and the right are being utterly dishonest in their refusal to see the answers to the questions they raise are written in stone in the 123 agreement.”

Well politics and dishonesty do not live that far and India is no exception. When we borrowed Heavy Water from US for CIRUS (Canada India Reactor US) reactor, the terms of the agreement both with Canada and with US were explicit that India will use that reactor only for civilian and peaceful purposes. Yet a official government document on ‘Evolution of India’s Nuclear Policy’ claims that

“It (India) has not violated any international agreements either in 1974 or now, in 1998.”

Yes the Pokhran test in 1974 which used the plutonium produces by CIRUS was quite ‘peaceful’.

So my point for both left and right of Indian parliament is WHY BOTHER?  Never mind reading the agreement, lets just get the nuclear technology from US while we have a chance. Once we have it, our neighbors would give us lot of ‘peaceful’ reasons for its use. Let the US worry about its interpretation and consequences, as this guy from Nuclear Control Institute, seems worried. Just an excerpt from his article:

” Today, the U.S. government appears to be preparing for a repeat performance on CIRUS, only this time the end result may be an agreement that allows India to turn an Atoms for Peace reactor into a declared military production plant.  “

We can always make additions to ‘Evolution of India’s Nuclear Policy’  and maintain the sanctity of 123 agreement, whatever that is. 

Astronomers around the world are surely divided on fate of the number of planets in the solar system and so is the public reaction. It wont be easy for everyone to change the notion of  ‘ Nine planets’.  Is it necessary to bring these changes or astronomers are just bored is a debatable question.

The resolution is to have 12 planets, which would mean addition of Ceres(Demoted from planet status about 100 years back), Charon (Pluto’s moon), and 2003 UB 313 (Farthest known object in Solar System) to the planet list .

Then there are reports of Pluto being demoted to a dwarf planet and eventual possibility of Earth’s Moon being added to the list (long after you and I die), subjected to to survival of Earth-Moon system.

Immediate question which comes to the mind is how frequently we will update this list and how strongly will this definitions stand over the centuries. Would something be retained as ‘XXX Classical Planets of XXXX World’ just as we have ‘ Seven Wonders of the Ancient World’ 

Astronomers are divided on every aspect and what ‘may’ happen depends on who you ask! So I just stopped following the reports and look forward to the outcome of meeting at International Astronomical Union (IAU) at Czech capital of Prague. (Sounds so similar to my name!)

I hope whatever they come up with, they come with a strong definition which will allow only addition of planets as and when they are found but not be dropped like Ceres only to be reconsidered as a planet after 100 years and now the shaky status of Pluto!