NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4766608.stm
The nuclear deal with India enshrines a shift in US policy with far-reaching implications.

It underscores the special relationship between Delhi and Washington. And it sends powerful - and in many ways contradictory - signals about the Bush administration's attitude towards the nuclear non-proliferation regime...

So...does the NPT have any relevance left whatsoever? If the US now side-steps it completely, does it not undermine one of our best (I would even say "the only") argument we have against the Iranians and their research?

It's just the latest episode in the United States' historical habit of wanking its collective dick and spooging over world consensus just because it can.

The League of Nations, the United Nations, the Kyoto Protocol, Iraq 2. And now this. All victims of American Self-Gratification.

Oh great. Another "blame america for everything" thread. Let me save you the time. George Bush in the antichrist. Americans and their jewish puppetmasters want to make a global empire. Blah blah blah....

India already had nuclear weapons. The U.S. has just given up isolating the largest democracy in the world because of it.

I guess it's OK for India but not OK for Iran, just because the Americans say so. :rolleyes:

India already had nuclear weapons. The U.S. has just given up isolating the largest democracy in the world because of it.

Uh huh. Suuuure. How do you know it's not because they want to cozy up to India and make sure it can work as a wall to Pakistan and China?

They're not doing it for democracy or anything stupidly idealistic like that.

Uh huh. Suuuure. How do you know it's not because they want to cozy up to India and make sure it can work as a wall to Pakistan and China?

They're not doing it for democracy or anything stupidly idealistic like that.

I didn't say they were. But India IS the larget democracy in the world, and could be a legitimate partner in the global effort to expand freedom.

And I can't help you if you refuse to believe India already had nuclear weapons. They have had them for DECADES. India, Pakistan, Israel, and probably South Africa and North Korea are ALL nuclear powers, they just have not been recognized as such.

Time Magazine just did a big cover story on India. Apparently, pro-US sentiment is higher there than anywhere else in the world...somewhere around 70% approval.

We're sucking up to the only "friend" Bush hasn't pissed off yet.

Well, you want a free market, unfortunately grain and iron ore concentrates arn't the only things countries want these days...

I guess it's OK for India but not OK for Iran, just because the Americans say so. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Iran signed NPT. India did not. There is simply no comparision between Iran and India. They signed NPT and voluntarily gave up their rights to develop nuke weapons. We did not, because we knew we had to eventually weaponise since China invaded us and China is a nuke power.

Just because we did not test before 1965, does not mean that we are not a nuke weapons state. Either you can accept reality and make sensible choices (like including India under inspections regime and cooperating for nuke power) or you can deny India nuke fuel citing NPT and watch us burn coal....tonnes of high polluting coal ;)

How do you know it's not because they want to cozy up to India and make sure it can work as a wall to Pakistan and China?


People are sorely mistaken if they think India will gang up with America against China.

We have no intentions of being the new poodle.

People are sorely mistaken if they think India will gang up with America against China.

We have no intentions of being the new poodle.

Nah, you just want to play Missile Command on Islamabad.

I guess it's OK for India but not OK for Iran, just because the Americans say so. :rolleyes:
I tell you what. When you're country has the best military in the world, you can decide who can have weapons and who can't.
But seriously, who's India going to use them against? Iran, on the other hand will use them against America itself. Nuclear weapons are great for a country's power and leverage, but who in their right mind is going to give them to enemies?
It's called acting on your best interests.

I didn't say they were. But India IS the larget democracy in the world, and could be a legitimate partner in the global effort to expand freedom.

Expand freedom? What crack are you smoking? Any politician who gets to be in charge of a couple dozen square kilometers and more sure as heck won't go anywhere to "expand freedoms". The more correct idea is that whatever they do, it's for numero uno. Freedom is that little decorative print that people seem all so fascinated about so that they can forget about the big rickety house it's plastered on.


And I can't help you if you refuse to believe India already had nuclear weapons.

Straw man. I've never actually said that India didn't have nuclear weapons. Anyone who paid attention to the atomic dick waving India and Pakistan had with nuclear weapons some several years back knows that they both had them.

People are sorely mistaken if they think India will gang up with America against China.

We have no intentions of being the new poodle.

Maybe the Indian higher ups feel that way. But how do you know that the US politicians don't? Looking at the rhetoric against China and the increase of relation building rhetoric thrown out by the US, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that even if India won't be a lapdog, the people in the White House aren't listening.

The title of the thread "> Americans give nuclear technology to non-NPT signatory!" is very misleading.

It is not technology that we are looking for. We desperately need fuel since we are running out of Uranium. The Thorium based reactors (for which we have enough Thorium) will start kicking in atleast a decade from now. In the mean time, we need Uranium to run the other reactors. Currently, under the NPT regime, the NSG (nuke suppliers group) CANNOT supply India any fuel because we are not a signatory to NPT. If we are continued to be denied fuel, we have no choice but going for coal (or the gas pipeline from Iran which is still a pipedream due to various reasons).

I tell you what. When you're country has the best military in the world, you can decide who can have weapons and who can't.
But seriously, who's India going to use them against? Iran, on the other hand will use them against America itself. Nuclear weapons are great for a country's power and leverage, but who in their right mind is going to give them to enemies?
It's called acting on your best interests.

Ahem... does Pakistan ring a bell? They've wanted to blow the shit out of each other since the Partitioning.

And like Human Rights, this whole issue is about hypocrisy on US hands. North Korea is also a non-signatory of the NPT but are we encouraging the regime there? Hell no.

Nah, you just want to play Missile Command on Islamabad.

We can play that anytime we want.

If we are being pushed to the corner by denying us fuel, we might just do that to get to energy resources in central Asia. ;)

I feel i should remind everybody here of a few things...

1) Iran is NOT a nuclear power. In fact, the Bush admin is trying to KEEP it that way. India is, and infact it is an EXCHANGE of nuclear technology. We give them some, they give us some.

2) India has not threatened to destroy another nation with any and every means it has availible, is not run by a religious demigogue which has repeatedly called for an ethnic clensing of a group of people, does not actively support Al-Qaeda in terms of money, places to hide, and medical treatment, and... oh... has not threatened to attack American troops either.

3) No deal has been worked out yet. Read the actual press release. All that is there is that Bush and the Indian president has agreed on a set of terms to take to their respective congressional bodies for review. 95% of the agreement done was economic trading agreements.

4) India is letting us inspect 14/22 of their nuclear reactors. Right now, all those reactors are uninspected. Thats pretty good for someone who is hated by the entire world dont you think?

We can play that anytime we want.

If we are being pushed to the corner by denying us fuel, we might just do that to get to energy resources in central Asia. ;)

Aryavartha, I know you're quite logical. You know playing missile command isn't a one player game. It's a co-op. :p

Maybe the Indian higher ups feel that way. But how do you know that the US politicians don't? Looking at the rhetoric against China and the increase of relation building rhetoric thrown out by the US, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that even if India won't be a lapdog, the people in the White House aren't listening.

When I said people are going to be sorely mistaken, I meant the people in the white house.

Trade with China is booming. Within this decade, it will easily overtake our trade with US. If we play our cards right, we might just avoid getting drawn into one camp or the other.

You know playing missile command isn't a one player game. It's a co-op. :p

I was thinking it was like one of those command and conquer things. Thanks for the correction.:D

3) No deal has been worked out yet. Read the actual press release. All that is there is that Bush and the Indian president has agreed on a set of terms to take to their respective congressional bodies for review. 95% of the agreement done was economic trading agreements.

I think it is actually a done deal. It was for this deal (plus other proliferation concerns), we voted against Iran twice despite Iran being an important part of our energy security plans.

Bush is sold on it and he will push this deal through the congress.

I think it is actually a done deal. It was for this deal (plus other proliferation concerns), we voted against Iran twice despite Iran being an important part of our energy security plans.

Bush is sold on it and he will push this deal through the congress.

that is a negative. the president does not have power to authorize treaties like this. Congress does. This has to get through congress, and because of the ratio of republicans to democrats, this can die in the senate unless it has bipartisan support. If it does, then theres nothing wrong with the treaty. if it doesnt, then its going to be reworked. Its only a done deal if everybody on the first page was wrong and it actually *IS* a good treaty

the president does not have power to authorize treaties like this. Congress does.

That's why I said that Bush will push this through congress..meaning..he will make it pass.

Its only a done deal if everybody on the first page was wrong and it actually *IS* a good treaty

It is a good treaty for the interests of the US, India and the world.

It is bad only for the NPT academics whose career depends upon preserving the NPT in its current state.

I think it is actually a done deal. It was for this deal (plus other proliferation concerns), we voted against Iran twice despite Iran being an important part of our energy security plans.

Bush is sold on it and he will push this deal through the congress.

Well, don't hold your breath. Bush can't just push something throught congress anymore. He's almost a lame duck. He couldn't even push through his pet project social security privitization plan. And he *really* pushed for that. And many in congress (in both parties) are already speaking out against this proposed treaty.

I don't know if this will pass or not. It has its pros and cons. But I do know that it will be a tough fight and won't happen over night. And India may not enjoy being publicly probed, poked, and prodded like it will be. This will be an interesting show for sure.

Here is a good article on both sides of this subject.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/textonly/focus1.html

It is not technology that we are looking for. We desperately need fuel since we are running out of Uranium.
Go Aussieland...so far, the consensus here has been that unless India signs the NPT, they ain't gettin' any.

The point of mine, I think, was pretty clear from the OP. Personally, I like India. I don't like the fact that they have nukes, but the same goes for every other nuclear power.

My concern is more about the NPT. It used to be the one thing we had to make try and keep nuclear technology out of the hands of small-time madmen.
But now the Bush Administration seems to me to be undermining the NPT. Sure, India had nukes. But that's not the point - the point was that no one would help them with it, or support them. Unless you sign the NPT, which has strict guidelines regarding nuclear weapons, you are not considered responsible enough to have nukes.

If we now make exceptions (and I don't care with whom), we send a pretty clear message regarding the worth of the NPT. And that message goes straight to Tehran.

This will be an interesting show for sure.


No doubt.

Reg the deal, there is another important factor. The industry lobby of GE Westinghouse etc. There is plenty of money to be made in this deal.

Go Aussieland...so far, the consensus here has been that unless India signs the NPT, they ain't gettin' any.

Oz will eventually roll over, like they always do, especially when master says so. :p

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200603021764.htm
Australian PM for strategic ties with India

We are not that keen on Oz anyway. We haven't forgotten the shrill from Oz PM after the nuke tests on 98. What we are looking for is Pu from Russia for seeding the Thorium reactors. Uranium, we can get from Nigeria etc who would be more easy to deal with.


My concern is more about the NPT. It used to be the one thing we had to make try and keep nuclear technology out of the hands of small-time madmen.
But now the Bush Administration seems to me to be undermining the NPT.


NPT was undermined primarily by China proliferating left, right and centre.

What has the NPT community, you, the US or anybody else have done in this regard. NOTHING.

Added later: Lots of details here.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/print/20060302-11.html
Press Briefing by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns
Maurya Sheraton Hotel and Towers
New Delhi, India

Why wouldn't we give approval to an ally? Complain all you like but at least we are openly corrupt in america, we don't keep it hidden :D

They Can Impeach Clinton For Getting His Wang Sucked. But Bush Is Selling Our U.s. Ports To The Terrorist, And Arming The Diaper Heads With Nuclear Weapons... Oh Yes It's The End.. There Is No Benefit From Beiging Friends With India Their Tech Support Is Lowsy At Best.. I Love My Country But The Government Sucks.. We Need No Congress Or President, If It's Really A Peoples Republic. We Should Have The Say And Not These Over Paid Congressmen. A Vote Is Good Enough. Time For A Government Clean Up.. I Love The U.s. . I Dont Want To See It Fade..

The moral of this tale?

Kiss America's ass continuously and you can get away with almost anything.

I guess it's OK for India but not OK for Iran, just because the Americans say so. :rolleyes:

Damn right. Upon last examination India is a vibrant up-and-coming democracy, while Iran is an theocratic backwater, whose leader proposed wiping another country off the map.

It says alot about libs that they can honestly not distinguish between the two.

Why wouldn't we give approval to an ally? Complain all you like but at least we are openly corrupt in america, we don't keep it hidden :D

Giving favors to allies and and shunning sworn enemies is now "corrupt"? No wonder Europe is going down the crapper if it's filled with people like you.

The moral of this tale?

Kiss America's ass continuously and you can get away with almost anything.

The moral of the tale is more like: "Don't have your national motto be 'Death to ______' or swear to 'wipe _______ off the map', and THEN you get to have nuclear technology.

Once again, I must express my amazement at all these peace-loving liberals being borderline PRO-nuclear proliferation in admitted terrorist states. I only wish the Democrats were as frank in their loyalties as you.

The moral of the tale is more like: "Don't have your national motto be 'Death to ______' or swear to 'wipe _______ off the map', and THEN you get to have nuclear technology.

Once again, I must express my amazement at all these peace-loving liberals being borderline PRO-nuclear proliferation in admitted terrorist states. I only wish the Democrats were as frank in their loyalties as you.

Nice ad hominem. Then again you buy into Bush's "You're With Us or You're Against Us" wankfest rhetoric.

:rolleyes:

You're too busy wrapping your dick in the Red White and Blue to see the bigger picture.

If India gets rewarded with being allowed to keep nuclear technology without being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it sends a bad signal to the other countries "Why Bother?" Then you'll have plenty of other countries starting to develop their own nuclear technology with at least half involving weaponizing projects. The nicest ones will say "Well you let India keep theirs and didn't crack down on them" while the rest like North Korea will keep going with a "Fuck you" attitude. And don't think the U.S. can nuke them all before a few retaliatory strikes and maybe some political and economic interdictions blow the shit out of the nation's infrastructure.

It says alot about libs that they can honestly not distinguish between the two.

You might want to come down off that high horse. Opposition to this is coming from both the "libs" and the "cons." For example...

"House members of the energy conference committee approved a measure offered by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) to prevent the export of nuclear technology to India. "This is a way for the House to send a signal on this particular treaty," Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the conference committee, said in a statement."

...But until we can go over this deal with a fine tooth comb, neither side will know for sure if it is a good deal or not. No need to be hasty in your judgements.

.

Don't you love these little side-deals when you use the NPT to threaten other nations?

NPT? What NPT? Who needs the NPT when you are trying to harry the world into nuclear war.

Cartoon from Daily times, a Pakistani paper.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2006/03/04/20060304_zahoor.jpg

Blair welcomes the deal.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9124.asp

The battle now moves on to the congress.

Oh man, the Iranians are going to love this soooooo much! :/

Oh man, the Iranians are going to love this soooooo much! :/

I don't really see why.

Iran is a signatory of NPT and is bound by the treaty obligations. It has violated its obligations by engaging in proliferation.

India is a non-signatory but still has had not been involved in any proliferation activity.

There is little to no comparision here between the two countries.

Have you heard anything about the deal, Einstein?
He's sharing nuclear power as to help wean India off oil in the impeding fossil fuel shortage. And besides, we don't hear India's leaders going on about "enriching uranium for peaceful purposes" (which is utter BS anyways)

Iran is a signatory of NPT and is bound by the treaty obligations. It has violated its obligations by engaging in proliferation.


Don't you have to have working nuclear tech before you can get a charge of nuclear proliferation to stick? I know the Iranians are building some reactors, but I haven't heard of any operational ones to date.

I don't really see why.

Iran is a signatory of NPT and is bound by the treaty obligations. It has violated its obligations by engaging in proliferation.

India is a non-signatory but still has had not been involved in any proliferation activity.

There is little to no comparision here between the two countries.

Except you don't want India and Pakistan to be war with both having nuke tipped missiles.

Second moral of this story?

If you want your country to have nukes, don't sign the NPT and suck on America's cock until it spooges.

Don't you have to have working nuclear tech before you can get a charge of nuclear proliferation to stick? I know the Iranians are building some reactors, but I haven't heard of any operational ones to date.

Well they procured centrifuges from Pakistan that can be used to enrich weapons grade Uranium. And also a Chinese bomb design from Pakistan.

Both these acts are considered acts of proliferation under the terms of NPT (I am reasonably sure, please correct me if I am wrong with the technical terms)

Except you don't want India and Pakistan to be war with both having nuke tipped missiles.

I don't get the reference. Pl explain.

Second moral of this story?

If you want your country to have nukes, don't sign the NPT

You got that right.

and suck on America's cock until it spooges.

:rolleyes:

lol. India can hardly be accused of being a poodle of the US.

The deal was in both party's interests. Neither of them sucked the other's cock.

I am not certain how this is sidestepping the NPT. The NPT prohbits signatories from transfering nuclear technology to non-Nuclear Weapons States which do not meet the IAEA safeguards for the use of that technology in the development of nuclear weapons. India is a nuclear weapons state so that provision doesn't apply and the IAEA has approved (and even endorsed) the proposed safeguard regime. The purpose of the NPT is to prevent nations from becoming nuclear weapons powers, that train already left the station with regards to India.

There may be an agument made that fissionable material is fungible and that providing fissionable materials to India might permit India to produce more bombs from materials which would otherwise be used for peaceful nuclear power, or even that India might be forced by energy needs to dismantle exisiting nuclear weapons for fissionable materials for peaceful nuclear power, but that argument is entirely outside the scope of the NPT.

There may be an agument made that fissionable material is fungible and that providing fissionable materials to India might permit India to produce more bombs from materials which would otherwise be used for peaceful nuclear power, or even that India might be forced by energy needs to dismantle exisiting nuclear weapons for fissionable materials for peaceful nuclear power, but that argument is entirely outside the scope of the NPT.

Good post. You have certainly grasped the nuances. :)

It can be argued that India can divert fissile material to make more bombs, but the pressing need for India is fuel for energy. A minimum credible deterrant has aready been established and we certainly have no intrest in maintaining huge costly arsenal like US/USSR does. But the establishment would still like to retain the option of expanding the arsenal if the situation changes (for ex if China expands its arsenal or if there is another hostile nuke power in the region etc).

The argument may be out of scope of NPT, but it has been one of the primary objections from the NPT community (George Perkovich, Michael Krepon, David Albright etc).

India needs nuclear power to sustain its economic growth and to make the necessary infrastructure investments to develop their economy; without it, there's very little they can use other than petroleum (which would drive up oil prices and threaten world economic growth) or coal, and the main problem is that India does not have a plentiful supply of clean coal which means they produce even more emissions that will pollute their country as well as exacerbate global warming. From an economic standpoint, it is an excellent and necessary move.

Plus, expanding nuclear technology is good for the economy because it creates another major high-tech, high education sector as well as numerous industries that splinter off from it. Not to mention a well developed civil nuclear program puts more people to work developing new technologies and researching new ways to implement them.

Go Aussieland...so far, the consensus here has been that unless India signs the NPT, they ain't gettin' any.

Hope you would be reading this.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1584452.htm
Mr Howard has told reporters on his arrival in New Delhi that he is willing to re-examine the policy.

"We are interested in the agreement that's been struck between the United States and India," he said.

"We do have long-standing policy of only selling uranium to countries that are part of the NPT regime, but we'll have a look at a bit more information about that and we'll further assess it.

"Australia does have large supplies of uranium, we have some of the largest uranium deposits in the world, and provided the rules are followed and the safeguards are met, we are willing to sell."

Hope you would be reading this.
I suspected as much...as you said, if master calls, Johnny comes running.

But fair enough, I concede your point. I still think it sends the wrong message, but strictly speaking nobody is really doing anything bad. We'll see how things turn out.