US-India nuclear agreement

boy in blues SG

Ten years from now, will George Bushs determination to rewrite nuclear rules for preventing the bombs spread be judged to have been courageously right or dangerously wrong? In striking his deal with India, allowing it to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favour a friend than to stick to a principle ...It is one thing to have as broad and close a friendship with a nuclear India as the anti-nuclear rules allow...It is quite another to knock aside the rules for Indias sake. To be sure, Mr Bush is not proposing that other nuclear dabblers be given a welcome if they are persistent enough to succeed...Rather, he wants democratic, friendly, law-abiding India to be treated as an exception by Congress...

The problem here is that India could instead prove the exception that fatally weakens the rules. The devil is both in the deals troubling detail, and in its likely knock-on effects. India may not have signed the NPT, but America has. In doing so, it promised not to help other countries with their nuclear-weapons tinkering. It also pioneered the reinforcing principle that only countries that have all their nuclear facilities under international safeguards (India doesnt now and wont in future) should benefit from trade in civilian nuclear technology. If countries were going to sign the NPT and renounce nuclear weapons themselves, they needed assurance that as many others as possible would follow suit...

Allowing nuclear trade with India breaks that bargain in a particularly damaging way. The rules had started to bite: India was running short of supplies of uranium for both civilian and military purposes. By allowing it to import nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors, America will be directly easing the bottlenecks in its weapons programme...Worse, Indias experimental fast-breeder reactor programme, ideally suited to produce plutonium for warheads though previously claimed to be for civilian purposes, is to be exempted from all safeguards. That will allow India in future to produce scores of weapons a year...Then add insult to injury. Not only is nuclear armed India being offered all of the civilian benefits available to countries that have accepted the NPTs anti-nuclear restrictions. It has also accepted few, if any, of the real obligations of the five official nuclear powers recognised by the treaty, America, Russia, China, Britain and France. All at least signed the treaty banning all nuclear tests; India declined...

Giving India a freer ride is also likely to embolden Iran and North Korea in their defiance...When Congress is asked to change Americas anti-proliferation laws, it should say no.

arjun SG

India must have been a member of the NSG. A nuclear aparthied has been going on for a long time. Now it is time for the world community to recognise India as a nuclear power and to appreciate India’s track record which even betters the nuclear five. This treaty is not a military one. It is for the production of power and let me tell you that India has its own nuclear power program based on thorium reactors. It will take another 10 years before we can build commercially viable thorium reactors. Till then this deal will help.

arjun SG

When you post an article please post the link also

But the new pact between Washington and New Delhi undermines 35 years of nuclear arms control, and that stark reality poses a real risk to global security.

This 35 years of nuclear arms control was just on paper. What were these IAEA and other regulatory bodies doing when nuclear weapons were traded like pizza's by some of the NSG members and later by their puppets.

By treating India as an acceptable nuclear partner, Bush has signaled the U.S. is prepared to do business with strategic partners such as India or Israel, even as it continues to treat Pakistan like a nuclear pariah and blasts North Korea and Iran as threats to world peace.

There is no need for U.S or any other nations to be threatened by India. India understands her obligations better than any of these nations. That is why the track record of India in proliferation is clear. The issue of Libyan, North Korean, and Iranian nuclear weapons arised because of certain nations violating nuclear regulations and running nuclear walmart's. Thos who do Pariah work can only be treated as a pariah.

Why shouldn't Pakistan or Israel now seek similar bilateral deals outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? And what incentive have North Korea and Iran to comply?...

Those who ploriferated nuclear weapons has no reason to ask for any deal. It is like the thief asking for the Police uniform. Iran went and signed the NPT and now they are not abiding by that treaty. They are not allowing inspectors. They are hell bend on developing nuclear weapons and cleaning Israel of the map. This is the reason why Iran cannot be treated or even compared with India.

As a responsible nuclear weapon state India has pleadged no first use of nuclear weapon. Also the nuclear doctrine clearly states that the weapon will never be used against a non-nuclear weapon state in a war. Because that nation will not be the first to strike or will not be striking with Nuclear weapons.

There are a lot and lot of things that can be said of. But I am stopping at this point.

If you have any concerns just put it here.

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by arjun:
[b]There is no need for U.S or any other nations to be threatened by India. India understands her obligations better than any of these nations. That is why the track record of India in proliferation is clear. The issue of Libyan, North Korean, and Iranian nuclear weapons arised because of certain nations violating nuclear regulations and running nuclear walmart's. Thos who do Pariah work can only be treated as a pariah.
b]

I believe the main agenda behind this deal is to ease India's need for oil and hence will prevent India to become another China who will compete oil and gas
with USA.Bush can say whatever he want about reducing dependent on ME oil, but the fact is USA will still be the biggest user of oil in the next 20 years.

arjun SG

The main aim of the U.S is as the one you mentioned. Oil prices are going very high and in the near future there will be tremendous need for oil in India. And with each passing day more and more oil consumed by India will increase the oil price. The U.S need not worry about this because they can go and build nuclear reactors. But there are many nations friendly to the U.S without these kind of nuclear technology and the world economy will collapse. High oil prices may result in low growth rate for smaller and poorer countries and they may become even poorer.

India's oil requirement may even hamper the Indo-U.S relations because India will be compelled to go soft on arrogant nations or sometimes even have to seek their support . This will create diplomatic headache for the U.S.

Gazelle SG

I dont think USA is the only country in this world that has nuclear technology and i personally think that USA is playing a very politically game here. Yes high oil price will not doubt slow down the economy, but why did USA specifically only choose India, and not other poorer african and south american country?

Reason i believe it to make india a strong alliance so that they can counter the thread of rising China. India has a good geographical position that is capable of cutting the oil supply from ME to China. Guess USA must be very worried when India and China decided to join hand to bid for overseas oil exploration project.

I am just wonder how pakistan will react to this. Is india not worried that a nuclean reactor might be of a target for terror, especially coming from their pakistani neighbour?

contact1 SG

so big prawn behind the rock also cant see?

india = 2nd largest potential market

usa= need to off load exp things..

india = in a "war" with Pakistan

..
all adds up to?>
bush is a clever guy.................NOT!

*disclamir....i shall not be liable to the comments i make bcoz i am on medication that will affect my state of mind Laughing

arjun SG

Is india not worried that a nuclean reactor might be of a target for terror,

India is already running a lot of nuclear reactors. Both civilian and Military.
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/india.php

Till now there was no such distinction as civilian and Military. Now after the agreement India has to seperate the reactors as civilian and military. The fuel that U.S or other nations supplied will be used only in the civilian reactors and it will not be used for weapon programme. The IAEA will be inspecting these sites.

Terrorists are everywhere exported like a commodity to kill the kafirs all over the world. They can be here or there. India has taken adequate security measures to ensure that terrorists did not attack any of the nuclear reactors. Security will always be tight at such installations.

Contact, India is not in war with any nation.