US-INdia nuclear deal

[germanos]

I think the move will make proliferation of nuclear arms more likely to happen then that it will help to limit it.

If India has been a 'good boy' in respect of proliferation, then the US move will not improve the situation. It will stay as it was at best.

On the other hand, the signal that is been transmitted now is that one get away with the development of nuclear arms.
That signal has been send allready with respect to Pakistan and Israel before this, so there is not really anything new happening here.

As final point: nuclear fission is not a good solution to the world's energy needs. Radioactive waste is a far greater concern then global warning.


So, it's a loose-loose solution to the problems we face.

[Mao]

BEWARE A NUCLEAR SURINAME!!!

Originally posted by DAVOUT


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.

Actually, IIRC India was a historically more friendly (on aggragate terms) with the USSR while Pakistan was more friendly with either China or the USA to offset this. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression that I've gotten.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sikander


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

Obviously.

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).

Where did you get this nonsense? The NPT allows peaceful use of nuclear power with safeguards against weapons development. South Korea already has 35 nuclear reactors and is an NPT member in good standing. It doesn't need to ask anyone to build more.

Russia and China are declared nuclear weapon states within the NPT. They can keep their nukes but abide by safeguard agreements - which Bush now says, in yet another of his unilateral deals, don't need to apply to all India's nuclear programs. So we have one rule for India and one rule for everyone else. Please stop this dolt travelling abroad.

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.

US is propping up a military regime in Pakistan and said nothing when they tested a nuke. This reversed 4 decades of US policy. What the US got out of this is not clear because there appears to be quite a strong risk that muslim fundamentalists like the Taliban and Al Quaeda, or "terrorists" as Bush calls them, will get the bomb through the collapse of the military dictatorship Pakistan. It would be quite an irony if Bush's trip heightened that likelihood. If you're looking for the next Iran, its Pakistan. We already have the Islamic bomb, but this was just fine with Bush.

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.

Israel hasn't transferred, its just been stealing your nuclear secrets for decades. What a great friend you have there. Let's get the Indians in on the act now. Brilliant!

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?

So rewarding bad behavior is a sound basis for foreign policy? I'm now expecting to see Bush lift the blockade on Cuba if that is so.

The NPT gives a different status to the declared nuclear powers based on a commitment to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Bush's deal blesses India's plan to build a fast breeder reactor which allows them to build nukes faster than ever.

But cheer up, Bush got you Indian mangoes - a nice Apocalypse Now! touch.

[Gatekeeper]

Curious, AH: If the deal's so bad, why did El-Baradei come out, at the very least, in cautious support of it? Surely the man knows more about the ins and outs of nuclear diplomacy than most, if not all, of 'Poly.

Gatekeeper

[DAVOUT]

The nuclear deal illustrates the eternal fight between realism and principles. The US recognizes that he does not have the power to impose the principles and consequently try at least to participate in the next act of the show.

[Winston]

It's pragmatism. Which, of course, we can't have when it's coming from the Bush administration.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by germanos
I think the move will make proliferation of nuclear arms more likely to happen then that it will help to limit it.

If India has been a 'good boy' in respect of proliferation, then the US move will not improve the situation. It will stay as it was at best.

On the other hand, the signal that is been transmitted now is that one get away with the development of nuclear arms.
That signal has been send allready with respect to Pakistan and Israel before this, so there is not really anything new happening here.

As final point: nuclear fission is not a good solution to the world's energy needs. Radioactive waste is a far greater concern then global warning.


So, it's a loose-loose solution to the problems we face.

Nuclear waste doesn't cause any global changes.

The quantity of spent fuel is absolutely miniscule in comparison to hydrocarbon waste.

Unlike many other kinds of waste the tiny amounts of nuclear waste allow for easier monitoring and it is far more economical to make it chemically inert for the same reason.

Probably at some point the spent fuel will be of use for various exotic future technologies.

So how is nuclear waste a far greater concern?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Curious, AH: If the deal's so bad, why did El-Baradei come out, at the very least, in cautious support of it? Surely the man knows more about the ins and outs of nuclear diplomacy than most, if not all, of 'Poly.

Gatekeeper

This would be the same El-Baradei who infuriates the United States by temporising on Iran? Of course he's pleased. India is off the hook. Iran is next. The Bush Administration has set a terrible precedent. I know enough about nuclear diplomacy to know the United States loathes El-Baradei with a passion. For the US its a bit like getting applauded by Arafat.

El-Baradei will argue Bush can't have it both ways when Iran asks for its own rules. He's been one of the main obstacles to firm action against Iran because he waters down IAEA reports, essential for Security Council action. Gives China and Russia plenty of grounds to play a dead hand.

There'll be cheering in Pyongyang as well. Its a bit hard to argue the DPRK can't keep its nuclear program and have a light water reactor when you're letting India have a fast breeder.

And what was the real motivation? Commercial sales of nuclear technology. No secret has been made of this. Once again the Bush Administration has put its corporate buddies first.

Don't believe the malarky about counterweight to China. India is not going to lift a finger to help the United States with China. Its firmly non aligned and has no leverage over China anyway. There's virtually nothing India can do to hurt China. Its influence in Beijing is non-existent.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Don't believe the malarky about counterweight to China. India is not going to lift a finger to help the United States with China. Its firmly non aligned and has no leverage over China anyway. There's virtually nothing India can do to hurt China. Its influence in Beijing is non-existent.

India has already lifted more than a finger in signing the nuclear agreement; helping India to build a nuclear energy industry could not please to China, and this is certainly an serious motivation concealed behind the commercial one. But a concealed motivation can be called malarkey.

[Alexander's Horse]

which helps the United States how exactly?

[DAVOUT]

An increase of the US influence in India balances partially the Chinese influence building up in East Asia.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Don't believe the malarky about counterweight to China. India is not going to lift a finger to help the United States with China. Its firmly non aligned and has no leverage over China anyway. There's virtually nothing India can do to hurt China. Its influence in Beijing is non-existent.

Maybe not now, but surely India has security interests in Asia? Surely India doesn't want China to extend its grip on SE Asia, if it means to do so in the future? As far as I know, India is the No 1 adress for any outside party to balance versus China. Why should India not care for the balance of power in Asia? Note: what's going on now doesn't mean **** about what goes on in 20 years. Both the US and India know this.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
An increase of the US influence in India balances partially the Chinese influence building up in East Asia.

Sorry, where is China building up influence in East Asia???

All the major countries of the region are either US allies or China phobic. Just about every country in East Asia fears and wants to contain China. This leaves China with such important and influential friends as the DPRK and Burma. The Pacific is still a US lake.

Its laughable to suggest the United States needs India to balance China. If you believe that you really have no idea of the awesome power and reach of the United States in East Asia. China couldn't even mount an amphibious operation across the Taiwan Straits if it wanted to. It doesn't have the naval power even to do that. That's like only a few miles from their coast. China's army isn't even as well equipped as Saddam's.

Their main weight is economic and this without doubt is growing rapidly. It will take years to translate into military and strategic power.

[Ecthy]

"China phobic"? Will they still be in 20 years, when they see chances to make money in dealing with China? The realistic pursuit of their own interests has no room for hate or fear in the minds of people. The ME doesn't count, unless you can prove that the peoples of South and East Asia have the same attitude toward the Chinese as do the Arabs to the Jews.

And if China is alresdy so strong that they have no choice butto be against them - that's what this deal is all about. It means they're balancing!

[Provost Harrison]

Wouldn't the correct word be Sinophobic?