NationStates Jolt Archive

I vote yes - on the grounds that we, Americans, are an eroding superpower which fail simple maths.

Well, India is an up-and-coming country, and I suppose the US has a lot of making up to do, considering how they treated the place in the past.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's right to undermine the NPT like this.

Well, India is an up-and-coming country, and I suppose the US has a lot of making up to do, considering how they treated the place in the past.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's right to undermine the NPT like this.

We're the world police; of couse we can do that? Bush only adheres to treaties that serve him/the Tories.

Why not deal with India? Besides the fact that India is indeed the largest democracy in the world, it's also a nation with an industrious, well trained work force and a capable military in a strategic part of the world. US-India relationships are a good thing, and will benefit both nations.

India is a rising power and they will have nukes whether we accept this fact or not. We might as well accept this and try to improve relations with a nation that seems to like us. It serves us no purpose to continue to ignore India, this was the right thing to do and Bush is actually trying to please India in order to promote our interests which is what he is supposed to do.

Of course he is...

India is an up-and-coming democratic alternative to China for cheaply-made products for American business. That, and adding India to an encircling ring of steel around China helps create a new 'containment' policy that worked so well for NATO in the cold war with the USSR.

Of course, I'm not sure how much business was being done between the US and USSR during that phase....

He sure is. And breaking the law if he intends to share nuclear technology with a non-NNPT signatary, even if for civilian purposes. Pfft, and they complain about Iran.

India is an up-and-coming democratic alternative to China for cheaply-made products for American business. That, and adding India to an encircling ring of steel around China helps create a new 'containment' policy that worked so well for NATO in the cold war with the USSR.


According to our resident Indian national, Avarth (something or another. I can't remember his exact handle), India won't be the US's lapdog in this aspect. China and India might decide to end up with their own Bloc if the US policies become something they can't stomach.

We're trying to befriend them and help them out so they'll be nice to us if they become the world power instead of China. Giving them reactors doesn't hurt them beating China either. Not selfless at all but we're not trying to take them over.

According to our resident Indian national, Avarth (something or another. I can't remember his exact handle), India won't be the US's lapdog in this aspect. China and India might decide to end up with their own Bloc if the US policies become something they can't stomach.

Oh I don't doubt India will have its own agenda. The US will have to step softly around certain issues, particularly with Pakistan. But it will be hard for India to ignore those awfully lucrative American markets and nuclear technology.

I for one, hope that this will lead to a greater relationship between the US and India. I live in Canada, where a very large proportion of MPs who were running in the recent federal election were from India originally. I would much rather see democratic nations engaging in trade with other democratic nations. Just a personal thing.

Of course he is...

India is an up-and-coming democratic alternative to China for cheaply-made products for American business. That, and adding India to an encircling ring of steel around China helps create a new 'containment' policy that worked so well for NATO in the cold war with the USSR.

Of course, I'm not sure how much business was being done between the US and USSR during that phase....


xD That made me chuckle. Like the humour ;)

People seem to be voting on the polls and not posting, typical. :P

Nonetheless, I don't think it's right to undermine the NPT like this.

I would really like to know your reasoning on this subject.

Who undermined NPT more?

China - by proliferating to N.Korea, Pakistan and Pakistan which inturn proliferated to Iran, N.Korea, Libya and ran a NukesRUs shop?

Or India which has a clean record (better than even certain NPT NWS countries) and has put in safeguards voluntarily in addition to a voluntary moratorium on testing and a no-first use doctrine on top of that.

The nuke doctrine also states that nukes will never be used on a non-nuke nation. India also has a state goal of global disarmament, which none of the current nuke powers have.

India has demonstrated clearly that it is a responsible nuke weapons state, more responsible than some of the current nuke weapons state in the NPT.

Why should this nuclear apartheid of excluding a billion people democracy from participating in nuke tech continue inspite of the reality changing a lot since NPT was formed in 1965?

Would it be better if we also indulge in proliferation like China did and get Uranium from Iran and Nigeria etc and basically be a nuisance and blackmail ?

or would it be better to bring the reactors that India already have under the IAEA inspections and share nuke tech (two way sharing, India is on the cutting edge in FBR which if it matures, could be a good tech for the whole world) in exchange for making the de-facto Indian nukes as de-jure?

According to our resident Indian national, Avarth (something or another. I can't remember his exact handle), India won't be the US's lapdog in this aspect. China and India might decide to end up with their own Bloc if the US policies become something they can't stomach.

India won't be joining any camp. India is big enough to be its own camp.

Sure we will cooperate with China in economy and such matters, but we won't be ganging up with them against the US or gang up with US against them.

two reasons.

1. In hopes nuclear energy will sate at least some of their thirst for oil so there is less competition.
2. counterbalance China. We now have flanks on both sides of China. Japan on one side and India on the other. :)

Or India which has a clean record (better than even certain NPT NWS countries) and has put in safeguards voluntarily in addition to a voluntary moratorium on testing and a no-first use doctrine on top of that.
Hey, I personally trust India to be responsible with the things, as I would trust France or the UK. Doesn't make it any better that they have them, but there are worse countries to own nukes.

Nonetheless, why doesn't India sign the NPT? How can we now justify any action against Iran, when we basically acknowledge that the NPT isn't worth the paper it's written on? It's realpolitik, I know, but I don't have to agree with it.

Oh and I don't think Karl Rove is behind this in anyway.

The main US figures behind this is Condi and aided in no small part by the likes of R.Blackwell (former amby to India), the heavyweights of India caucus (Gary Ackerman etc) and Indian-Americans like Ashley Tellis, Sumit Ganguly and many others.

Hey, I personally trust India to be responsible with the things, as I would trust France or the UK. Doesn't make it any better that they have them, but there are worse countries to own nukes.

Glad to know that.

Nonetheless, why doesn't India sign the NPT?

Because NPT, in its current state, cannot recognise us as nuclear weapon states. Gosh, I thought you knew it.

To join NPT in its current state, we would have to give up nukes, which we are willing to do only if there is a global disarmament.

How can we now justify any action against Iran, when we basically acknowledge that the NPT isn't worth the paper it's written on? It's realpolitik, I know, but I don't have to agree with it.

The situation looks similar but its not.

Iran signed NPT and gave up its right to pursue nuke weapons. We did not sign NPT to preserve the freedom to develop weapons.

We have been invaded by a nuke nation (China, 1962 war). We developed nukes only after that. And once we developed nuke weapons, we have behaved responsibly with it.

Iran, OTOH, has not demonstrated any responsibility with its continuing sponsoring of non-state terrorist organizations and with its stupid rhetoric of wiping other countries, plus its rather unstable power structure with its pan-shi'ite ambitions.

Even at the heights of Indo-Pakistan tensions, no Indian leader has threatened to use nukes to destroy Pakistan (despite many a Pakistani military leader hinting they would do so).

I know it is relative, but I feel that Iran currenty has not demonstrated responsibility to be trusted with nuke weapons and not to mention their treaty obligations and violations (that we are not fettered with).

The situation looks similar, but it is not.