US-INdia nuclear deal

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I, too, tend to think it's not such a bad thing — well, unless Hindu fundamentalists seize power and begin making faces at us and threatening to export nuclear technology to other, non-democratic states.

What are the odds of that happening?

Gatekeeper

Hindu fundies seizing power = pretty good chance

exporting tech to other Hindu powers = unlikely

[Gatekeeper]

I imagine the latter is understandable — after all, there *aren't* any other Hindu powers, are there? Sri Lanka?

Gatekeeper

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I imagine the latter is understandable — after all, there *aren't* any other Hindu powers, are there? Sri Lanka?

Gatekeeper

That really was my point, India is huge and heterogenous politically and religiously, but even if their largest religious group got complete control there aren't any obvious client states or non-nuclear allies for them to proliferate to.

[Gatekeeper]

Heh. Well, in the end, it's all about containing China's growing power.

That said, what are the odds India will build more and more nuclear weapons? Such a move would just set off a regional arms race, and only China could conceivably keep up with India's output, IMO. But I'm sure Bush, et al., took this into consideration. Right? If not, well, we can "count" on Congress to get to the bottom of it all, what with mid-term elections drawing near.

Gatekeeper

[DAVOUT]

The increasing share of the energy market/problem taken by Russia is likely a not small reason for the "historical agreement". The comparison with Iran, for instance, demonstrates that this agreement is a move to avoid a repetition of Russia playing the role of saviour in India as he is doing in Iran, role which is certainly tempting for Russia who was in the past a close ally of India.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Heh. Well, in the end, it's all about containing China's growing power.

That said, what are the odds India will build more and more nuclear weapons? Such a move would just set off a regional arms race, and only China could conceivably keep up with India's output, IMO. But I'm sure Bush, et al., took this into consideration. Right? If not, well, we can "count" on Congress to get to the bottom of it all, what with mid-term elections drawing near.

Gatekeeper

I agree that an important spur to this is China, though I think that anyone who says this is an alliance is going way too far. India may well build more nuclear weapons either way. There is already a regional nuclear arms race for which China bears primary responsiblity. My fear is that congress is finding it so politically advantageous to buck Bush that they may demagogue the issue like they have the port "scandal". Bush is right on this one, but he needs congress to change some laws, and that could be really hard to pull off. His advantage is that he can simply wait until the election is over if he so chooses. At that point he can probably reel in some Republicans to "get 'er done".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The increasing share of the energy market/problem taken by Russia is likely a not small reason for the "historical agreement". The comparison with Iran, for instance, demonstrates that this agreement is a move to avoid a repetition of Russia playing the role of saviour in India as he is doing in Iran, role which is certainly tempting for Russia who was in the past a close ally of India.

Interesting point. Why do you think the relationship between USSR / Russia and India has cooled in recent years?

[Alexander's Horse]

The Bush fanboys trying too hard here.

This deal is sheer lunacy.

You going to try and get Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions by allowing them to have a peaceful program too? Is it now okay for North Korea to stay outside the NPT with nukes? Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror so you'll take the risk of them going fundy with nukes? Israel can have as many nukes as they like because they're a democracy?

It just makes you shudder to think intelligent people defend nonsense like this.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sikander


Interesting point. Why do you think the relationship between USSR / Russia and India has cooled in recent years?

During the Cold War, India and other underdevelopped countries have adopted a foreign policy treating equaly USSR and US which means that the West did not enjoyed a preferred treatment, even sometimes suffered a worse one. This was ended by the fall of USSR. Then the improved treatment of the West (evidenced by the nuclear agreement) was understandably seen as a deterioration of their position by Russia.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Bush fanboys trying too hard here.

This deal is sheer lunacy.

You going to try and get Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions by allowing them to have a peaceful program too? Is it now okay for North Korea to stay outside the NPT with nukes? Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror so you'll take the risk of them going fundy with nukes? Israel can have as many nukes as they like because they're a democracy?

It just makes you shudder to think intelligent people defend nonsense like this.

Well I'm not a Bush fanboy, but I do like this deal. In truth I really don't understand your point.

North Korea signed the NPT, cheated on it and then unilaterally withdrew. It's not ok to cheat on the NPT and I'm certainly not giving them a pass. I don't recall your objections to Russia, China and South Korea's insistence that they be given nuclear power plants at several junctures in the negotiations of last dozen years (not that I recall you supporting it either).

Pakistan didn't sign the NPT and already has nuclear weapons as does India. No one is suggesting cooperating with them to my knowledge, I'm certainly not. Their proliferation activities are well-known at this point, and it would be foolhardy in the extreme to aid them IMO.

Israel like India already has nukes and didn't sign the NPT, nor have they transferred nuclear weapons tech to 3rd parties. They've been a valuable ally and a responsible nuclear power and I wouldn't object to a relationship with them similar to India's.

Is your point that any state which possesses nuclear weapons should be isolated forever, or are you willing to give a pass to the permanent security council members?

[Provost Harrison]

At the same time, Mr. Bush said that he was going forward with a trip on Friday to Pakistan to meet with its president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, despite a bombing this morning outside a Marriott hotel and the United States Consulate in Karachi. The bombing, a suspected suicide attack, left four dead, including an American diplomat.

Drat, a week too early

[pchang]

About Israel

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that Israel transferred a fair amount of nuclear weapons technology to South Africa in return for lots of uranium during the Apartheid era.


Also India, Iran, and NK are very different situations. India was never part of the NPT, developed the tech on their own and had no real prohibitions against doing whatever they wanted with the tech. By essentially cutting a side deal, the US is at least attempting to bring India in to the spirit of the NPT. India also has a good track record of not proliferating nuclear tech.

Iran and NK were part of the NPT and appear to be on their way out. Both are definitely going against the spirit of the NPT and both are definitely in it for the weapons and only paying lip service to the energy part. With Iran's gas and oil reserves it makes no economic sense to develop alternate forms of energy (plus their reactor sites are near active fault lines).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Drat, a week too early

[Guynemer]

I agree with Sik and Pchang.

Also, getting closer to India should, theoretically, make Pakistan and China think twice about making any regional powerplays. India should be a natural ally of ours, I'm surprised it has taken this long for such an effort to be made.

[pchang]

Cold war leftovers.