India and the Nuclear Deal

I'm not sure how I feel about it either, but that's because I'm unsure of the exact wording of the NPT. Does the NPT strictly forbid passing on civilian nuclear technology to non-member countries, or is it merely discouraged?

 

Because India is George Bush's big hope for the spreading of democracy and the American way...?

 

There's a love affair between Pakistan and the US since the 1950's. And I've read an article about a year got that some Indians want to seize the moment and benefit from the fact that this love has grown cold.
India is getting closer to the US and the US is getting closer to a strong ally and Kashmere (and the terrorists there). And India gets to put drive a wedge between Pakistan and the US.

I think there's a lot to gain for both of them and a lot to lose for Pakistan and Iran. Paksitan is in bed with China anyway. And isn't China courting Iran?

 

You know Iago, I never thought of that, but that's an excellent point. China and India and #1 and #2 respectively in the most populous countries in the world, and they are also #1 and #2 respective of countries that are industrializing very quickly. Given the extremely unlikely situation of the U.S. every becoming buddy-buddy with China, it would certainly behoove the U.S. to gain the other as an ally. Also, like BTA said, it's too late now for India to join the NPT even if it wanted to, and that may not be impetus enough for the U.S. to lose what may prove to be an valuable ally.

 

I believe that if they aren't a member they shouldn't get the rights of being a member.

 

Questionable situation, because i believe India has a double agenda.

 

India has had nuclear technology (both civilian -- and it is assumed -- military) for a few decades, correct? The US certainly isn't handing them "nukes."

Bush loves India because Bush's corporate sponsors love India, or at least love India's 1 billion people. That's 1 billion potential Marlboro smokers, Coke drinkers and MTV-watchers. Oh, and he wants to spread "freedom and democracy" and, like, stuff.

 

The problem is that by giving the technology to promote their research for, as it is said, civilian atomic energy, USA is also giving sources to expand their research on nuclear missiles.
And yes India and Pakistan have nuclear missiles. They have doing the last 10 years one test after the other, competing who will get the stronger missile.
IMHO to start giving that kind of firepower to a nation that has a open triffle with it neighbouhring nation is risky, to put it mildy.
Kasmir is an area that has no terrorists at least from a global point of view.
It is an area that has become the reasons for many, not so gentle, episodes in the diplomatic life of these two countries.
The story is long and the end is far from near.
Anyway the reality is that indeed India in the matter of spreading the nuclear secrets around was and is far more trustworthy than Pakistan.
And one more big plus they are not Muslims (as a majority of course), which means that they are somehow not so much influenced by the current global climate in diplomatic stratosphere
If it is a good move or not?
Well this is move, is more like the move Hrutsef used by sending missiles to Cuba. A straight and loud shout at the growing superpower (China) that hey here are some friends of ours , that in case of trouble will help us. USA tried it once with Pakistan, planned to do the same with Afganistan (will never become a peacefull country as i fear) and now India is the nr3 candidate.
Future will show how much the plans of USAs goverment are matching Indias plan for a firm and strong hold in the elite states.

 

Well...AFAIK...our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh isn't getting very many thumbs up from his own political counterparts in the Lok Sabha...the sore point here being that Singh's agreed to open up a fair share of indigenously developed nuclear plants and other nuclear facilities to US supervision (IIRC).

Of course, I'm a noob when it comes to this sort of thing, so I could be wrong.

BTW...WHY is it a big deal? We've had nukes for a LONG time now...publicly ever since the Pokhran tests in North India IIRC...also, Bush isn't GIVING us any nukes, just nuclear fuel, and civil nuclear technology...which will also be under US supervision.

All of this aside...

@Mithrantir: Not to be overly sensitive or anything, but I find your comment quite offensive. I'm a Muslim myself, and there's almost more Muslims in India itself, than there are in Pakistan on the whole! If India is more responsible with nukes, it would be because the Indian government is more responsible...not because we're not Muslims!

Also...I'm not sure if you know, our President is Muslim at the moment. I'd keep such comments to myself if I were you.

 

First of all it was not supposed to be offending.
The truth is that India is not a Muslim nation.

Personally i don't care even if India was atheists as a whole. The fact remains though that at the certain period of time, the tensions between Muslim (as a political system) countries and Western countries are high.

I don't like it either, but the fact is a fact.
So if i am right and if really the Muslims are not the majority, which is right, then India is not so much influenced by the ravings of Muslim extremists.

Which makes India a very well suited candidate, for someone who fears the effect of the tensions before mentioned, to do bussiness with.

The US Foreign Office must have also realized that, and that is why they decided to turn their backs (sort of) on Pakistan and General Musharaf.

Furthermore the fact that Indias goverment is more responsible (which i agree), is not a reason IMHO. After all if the secrets are to be spread it does not take a goverment to do it. A person with access is enough.
There are many countries with responsible goverments, that doesn't mean that they will all get what India took.

The big player here is USA and India is a pawn (sorry but this is a point of view, nothing disrespectful towards India)

 

@Mithrantir: I didn't mean that I was offended because you're putting Muslims down or something. Not at all!

I found it offensive because you said it was a plus that they are not Muslims. This would imply that Muslims as a stereotype are irresponsible. Now, I'm not going to get into that angle of the debate. Just trying to point out that...yes, you are right. India is not a Muslim state. However, that should NOT be the main reason for being considered a responsible nuclear state.

I hope that was clear.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I was not offended by the religious sentiments, if any. It was more of a national thing...