It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US and INDIA nuclear deal

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Talk about a good way to make enemies and influence people.Apparently a suicide bomber in pakistan has already attempted to blow up a us embassy.Havent Pakistan been doing enough to help the US lately.
Not ,i would suggest great timing to make such an announcement in the current climate.

www.thestar.com

Any thoughts on this, storm in a teacup or blatantly provacative?

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 4-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Well I think this deal presents an interesting problem.
Bush wants to support India by providing them with Nuclear power to fuel there econmy. However I cant be the only one who thinks this deal could go south in a few years.
How will the government of Pakistan feel about this deal ?
The Bush admin cries wolf over Irans nuclear program and then makes this deal with India.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
How will the government of Pakistan feel about this deal ?
The Bush admin cries wolf over Irans nuclear program and then makes this deal with India.


India is neither Iran nor Pakistan.
Iran needs to build Nuclear weapons to become the pre-eminent muslim state with 'clout'.
It needs to have the bomb to threaten Israel.
It needs to flex its muscles to show that the Shias rule supreme.
It needs the power to fix oil prices to its advantage.
It wants to be the new power centre of the developing world.
It needs to show the US of A that it cannot be buldozed into the so-called NWO.
It dosen't need nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It has plenty of fossil fuel to last it for generations. It needs nuclear power to build the bomb. PERIOD.

Pakistan has been the biggest proliferator of nuclear technology.
It has blatently passed on nuclear secrets to North Korea in exchange for its missiles.
It has transferred nuclear technology to Iran.
And Libya.
Pakistans nuclear facilities are far from safe. They can be taken over by rogue elements within the Army or other extremist organisations with disastrous consequences.
There is no 'rule of law'. Because there is no democracy.
So can Pakistan be trusted?

But, India is the biggest democracy with a rule of law, and an effective functioniong, though noisy, parliament.
India has a moratorium on any further nuclear testing.
It has NEVER been a proliferator of nuclear technology.
It's fast becoming a super power, probably in the next 25 years and thus needs nuclear power to fuel its rapidly expanding economy.
It dosen't need nuclear fuel for building its nuclear weapons. It has enough for strategic nuclear deterrence .
In a nutshell, India is a responsible nuclear power.

So comparing it with either Pakistan or Iran is totally misplaced. India is in a different league altogether.

So, expert11, what do you have to say to that??







[edit on 3-3-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
i totally agree with mike.indians are a peaceful lot.n they are quite a responsible ppl.
as regards to hte nuclear deal, its just another case of us tryin to show its supremacy n stop countries from developing in order to further its own cause.
the deal stinks bcos:
1.it doesnt rergard india as an equal, it just refers india to as a 'client' state.even pakistan is given that status.
2.it tries to hamper fast breeder reactor research of which india is a pioneer.
3.india has 75% of worlds thorium resources , once fast breeder are operational we wont requirwe any uranium from the western countries on whom we are so dependat now.
4.us has a terrible rep of being an unfair bargainer n spoilsport.

the deal is not going anywhere, it has already lost steam.
bush is in india rite now n he is dissucing economic ties n other stuff, the nuke deal is almost thrown out.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Where do I start ?
I wouldnt trust the government of Pakistan as far as I could poke a stick.
First of all I support India as a democracy.

However giving out nuclear tec could be a very dangerous game if the USA loses. The US government is walking a thin tight rope bewteen the governments of India and Pakistan.
Isnt there the possiblity of a rogue element overthrowing the Indian government ?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Isnt there the possiblity of a rogue element overthrowing the Indian government ?

Not a chance in hell!!
Its not happened in the past 60 years of independence and can never happen in the future.
The dynamics of the Indian democratic state are totally different from countries like Pakistan, which have seen a number of coups in its 60 year history.
India is too big a democracy to be taken over by any so-called rogue elements!
We're free and always will be!!
Cheers!



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
So mike you dont see any conflict of interest, pakistan supports US in war on terror, US allowed to use airspace etc when invading afghanistan.US invades Iraq looking for WMD's.US turns its eyes towards Iran.
US strikes nuclear deal with India, India and Pakistan combatants over long period of time. So on the one hand the US have been glowing in there regard for the aid Pakistan haven given in the 'war on terror'.On the other they strike a deal with Pakistans greatest adversary.
Something smells, in fact something absolutely stinks.

And mike you wouldnt happen to be a little biased?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Just some more links,a map,and an overview of the India/Pakistan conflict over Kashmir.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Note Chinas response in above link "Under the agreement, India will classify 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities as being for civilian use, and thus open to inspection.

China was swift to stress that nuclear co-operation between India and the US "must conform with provisions of the international non-proliferation regime".


www.pbs.org...

www.pbs.org...

I guess the only thing that really concerns me is the amount of tension this will now cause.The middle east is a hot bed of civil unrest, terrorism,'peacekeeping missions'.
Will we now need to add the asian sub continent to this list.I think you can tell from one of the above articles that pakistan now expects the same deal.
It wasnt all that long ago was it when there where serious fears of nuclear attacks between these two nations.Reading between the lines of the above articles it doesnt seem to me that tensions have eased very much if at all.

Interesting side note,US building stronger ties with India through nuclear deal.Have you noticed who else they share a border with.Hmmmmm.....

www.alertnet.org...



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Why are the Canadians and Australians pissed off? They're trying to put a spoke in the wheel and have refused to provide India with nuclear fuel etc until it signs the NPT.
The reason? India has no huge defence contracts with them and that's why they're pissed.


France and US of A have multi-billion dollar defence deals with India.

The Brits will wag their tail in appreciation since they'll go by what America does and says. Didn't a Britisher himself say that Britian is America's pet poodle? So no problem there!

Russia is a friend and is already on the bandwagon.

China is making some noise but of not much consequence. Thats because they've indulged in the worst kind of nuclear proliferation themselves, providing the wherewithal to its all weather ally - Pakistan and of course North Korea. So they don't have a moral high ground from which to preach.

So methinks the coast is clear. India is now well on the way to nuclearise its energy production - 60,000 MW of it in a dozen years from now.
And thats just the begining!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Why are the Canadians and Australians pissed off? They're trying to put a spoke in the wheel and have refused to provide India with nuclear fuel etc until it signs the NPT.
The reason? India has no huge defence contracts with them and that's why they're pissed.


France and US of A have multi-billion dollar defence deals with India.

The Brits will wag their tail in appreciation since they'll go by what America does and says. Didn't a Britisher himself say that Britian is America's pet poodle? So no problem there!

Russia is a friend and is already on the bandwagon.

China is making some noise but of not much consequence. Thats because they've indulged in the worst kind of nuclear proliferation themselves, providing the wherewithal to its all weather ally - Pakistan and of course North Korea. So they don't have a moral high ground from which to preach.

So methinks the coast is clear. India is now well on the way to nuclearise its energy production - 60,000 MW of it in a dozen years from now.
And thats just the begining!!!



I dont have a problem with India or Pakistan having nuclear energy i just find the timing of it all intriguing considering the current climate in the middle east.
As for australia being ticked off im not seeing that at all in our media or from our politicians.In fact our priminister is traveling to India with a trade delegation next week.India is australias 12th largest trading partner and one of only a few that we have a trade surplus with.

As for France and the US defence deals.Exactly!!!

And whos preaching from a moral ground, my argument is that the US by announcing this deal in the current political climate is only reinforcing divisions between Hindu and Muslim.I thought id made that fairly clear.

A country the size of India with its booming economy needs energy,no argument but once again i wonder about the timing.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This deal has a lot to go before it materialises..
Congress has to approve it.
And even though I may be biased, India has not contributed to nuclear proliferation at all.
probably one of the few nuclear weapons states to keep its tech to itself.
The US (not he the Bush govt. only)recognises India as a responsible nuclear weapons state.
And as for Pakistan wanting the same deal??!.
Well from Bush's statement in Pakistan:

"India and Pakistan are different countries with different needs.."



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

And even though I may be biased, India has not contributed to nuclear proliferation at all.
probably one of the few nuclear weapons states to keep its tech to itself.
The US (not he the Bush govt. only)recognises India as a responsible nuclear weapons state.
And as for Pakistan wanting the same deal??!.
Well from Bush's statement in Pakistan:

"India and Pakistan are different countries with different needs.."



Of course they have contributed to nuclear proliferation as has Pakistan just by having nuclear weapons.Even 1 wmd adds to the proliferation of these weapons.

Websters"prolific-producing or capable of producing in abundance".

As for keeping its tech to its self do you mean by not threatening to blow each other up as was seen Kashmir 2002.Or India playing host to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani in august 2005,perhaps they where just catching up to discuss the cricket.

As for Pakistan wanting the same deal, its a given,as long as the war on terror continues.

"On several occasions, under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. suspended sanctions each time developments in Afghanistan made Pakistan a strategically important "frontline state," such as the 1981 Soviet occupation and in the war on terrorism."Quoted from an article on this site.

64. 233.179.104/search

cisac.stanford.edu...

Again i have nothing against either india or pakistan just the logic behind announcing this deal at this time.There is more to it than US benevolance.


mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 4-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Daedalus3

And even though I may be biased, India has not contributed to nuclear proliferation at all.
probably one of the few nuclear weapons states to keep its tech to itself.
The US (not he the Bush govt. only)recognises India as a responsible nuclear weapons state.
And as for Pakistan wanting the same deal??!.
Well from Bush's statement in Pakistan:

"India and Pakistan are different countries with different needs.."



Of course they have contributed to nuclear proliferation as has Pakistan just by having nuclear weapons.Even 1 wmd adds to the proliferation of these weapons.

Websters"prolific-producing or capable of producing in abundance".

Again i have nothing against either india or pakistan just the logic behind announcing this deal at this time.There is more to it than US benevolance.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


You've got it all mixed up, Mojo.
We're not talking of Websters dictionary. We're talking of 'NUCLEAR proliferation'.

This definition in the nuclear context says:
"Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons production technology and knowledge to nations which do not already have such capabilities".

So how do you say that just because India has nuclear tech and weapons, it has contributed to proliferation? It has never given either technology or nuclear weapons to any other country.
So the question of proliferation where India is concerned dosen't arise. And the same has been acknowledged by the world.

But take look at Pakistan.
Nuke tech to North Korea in exchange for its missiles.
To Libya.
To Iran.
To Syria.
To Sudan and Nigeria (?).
So that's proliferation, Mojo.

And what's with the timing? India isn't Iran. No one can equate the two. So if you subscribe to the argument that if Iran is being denied research and production of fissile material, why should India be given access to the high tech nuclear reactors from the US and fuel from the NSG?
Lets be clear on one thing:
Iran needs enriched uranium NOT for civilian use for producing energy, but for nuclear weapons.
Iran has plenty of fossil fuel to last for generations. It dosen't need nuclear energy. But they need the BOMB. PERIOD!!
And the've gotta be stopped!.

In contrast India needs nuclear power for fuelling its rapidly expanding economy, as they don't have enough fossil fuel. Not for building bombs. It has enough nuclear weapons for minimum nuclear deterence and a second strike capability.

And the big five understand that. And to enforce controls, ALL civilian nukes are going to be put under IAEA safeguards, which was not the case untill now. (Give and take, eh?).

P.S. Australia dosen't have a Pakistan or China on its borders. It has only the tranquility of the oceans around it. And so it should understand the compulsions of India, right?




[edit on 4-3-2006 by mikesingh]

[edit on 4-3-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
maybe im not getting my point across very well mike, but believe me im not singling out india, i totally understand there predicament. as i said we here in australia are benefiting from indias booming economy as much if not more than most others.
I just believe that there is more to this than what we are being fed.And believe me i hope it is all above board, but unfortunately when it comes to the US and there foreign policy i cant help but feel that we(normal joes) arent always being told the whole truth.
I dont think ive said in any of my posts that iran should be able to conduct their nuclear program, in fact im dead against them having even slug guns.lol.
And us surrounded by tranquil oceans, well apart from the great whites that we swim with there is a small nation to our north with one of the largest muslim populations in the world, that have been known to harbor very anti australian views for quite some time.The bali bombings and attacks on our embassies is not a figment of our imaginations.(anyway thats off topic).


Friends still i hope,
Cheers
M4S



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale


Of course they have contributed to nuclear proliferation as has Pakistan just by having nuclear weapons.Even 1 wmd adds to the proliferation of these weapons.


That is a a strawman arguement at best

India went nuclear as a response to China and pakistan as a response to India.
China went went nuclear as a response to whom..??I rest my case..



Websters"prolific-producing or capable of producing in abundance".



As for keeping its tech to its self do you mean by not threatening to blow each other up as was seen Kashmir 2002.Or India playing host to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani in august 2005,perhaps they where just catching up to discuss the cricket.


No they weren't discussing cricket and neither were they discussing what you are implying

C'mon.. One lousy shred of evidence that India has passed on N-tech to ANY other country.. not too hard to find aye?..
esp when anyone can find loads of the very same on every other nuclear weapons state there is..



As for Pakistan wanting the same deal, its a given,as long as the war on terror continues.

Well if you're insinuating that Pakistan WILL actually get such a deal in the near future then all I can say is:
Really..? Right after the US found otu that the basis of the Iranian nuclear program is none other than Pakistan? Will if the US is dumb then.. yeah they might as well..



"On several occasions, under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. suspended sanctions each time developments in Afghanistan made Pakistan a strategically important "frontline state," such as the 1981 Soviet occupation and in the war on terrorism."Quoted from an article on this site.


Yeah well as I said, the US can go ahead at its own peril..



Again i have nothing against either india or pakistan just the logic behind announcing this deal at this time.There is more to it than US benevolance.


There is no such thing as "US benevolance"



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by mojo4sale






There is no such thing as "US benevolance"






Exactly, that has been my point from the start, not some sly dig at India.At no time have i said that India is doing anything wrong.I am merely questioning the motives of the US.I may very well be wrong and if i am i will admit it.

Would you!

Much Love
M4S



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
China went went nuclear as a response to whom..??I rest my case..


The United State's, Russia, et al.

Anyone remember Korea? Anyone remember those people in the U.S. Government calling for the "Bomb" to be dropped on China?

To be fair, Iran with Nuclear Power means that they can sell more fossil fuels - granted, solar power would be a wiser option but no Nation seems to like that or wind power...fact is, Iran can't bomb Israel, the United State's or anyone else because of they did there would be no more Iran.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

To be fair, Iran with Nuclear Power means that they can sell more fossil fuels - granted, solar power would be a wiser option but no Nation seems to like that or wind power...fact is, Iran can't bomb Israel, the United State's or anyone else because of they did there would be no more Iran.


Odium, thats what I've been saying all along.
So Iran's nuke capability has to be not only neutralised but destroyed before they can even think of using it against Israel.
Now the question is not 'if' but 'when' Iran's nukes are gonna be taken out.



[edit on 5-3-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Odium, thats what I've been saying all along.


No it's not, because I said nothing along those lines - no where do I speak of an attack on Iran, so do not try and link your own views with mine.

Fact is, Iran will never use a Nuclear Weapon unless attacked first and in many cases a Nuclear Stalemate will help the situation more-so than harm it. After all, it is Israel that has been found to have Nuclear Weapons, controlling all the debate, making all the demands and paying US Military Personnel to spy on their own Nation not Iran.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Daedalus3
China went went nuclear as a response to whom..??I rest my case..


The United State's, Russia, et al.

Anyone remember Korea? Anyone remember those people in the U.S. Government calling for the "Bomb" to be dropped on China?

To be fair, Iran with Nuclear Power means that they can sell more fossil fuels - granted, solar power would be a wiser option but no Nation seems to like that or wind power...fact is, Iran can't bomb Israel, the United State's or anyone else because of they did there would be no more Iran.


but can u trust ahmedijined who goes on harping about israels destruction, surely a head of state will show some political tact n diplomacy as not to air his personal views to the whole world.
and top of that these guys view death incase there would be retaliation as 'martydom', so acoording to them thers nothing wrong in bombing israel, cause even if others strike back, they'll attain 'heaven'.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join