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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
I cant be the only one who thinks this deal could go south in a few years.

Its allways possible. Relations between the US and India were soured for a while because of communist infiltration in India. However, with the death of the Soviety Union, this ins't much of an issue anymore. Notice that this deal occurs when the socialists have the government in India right now, for example.

The Bush admin cries wolf over Irans nuclear program and then makes this deal with India.

Iran received their nuke tech from international treaties that gave them the tech in exchange for never having a weapon program. India, and Pakistan, invented their nuke tech on their own, outside these agreements.
India is also an open liberal democracy, so its considered 'safe'.

And, of course, the Indian government never said that the United States is a "great satan" that needs to be destroyed. So perhaps its not too hard to see why the US doesn't have a problem with india having nukes.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
But, India is the biggest democracy with a rule of law

Lets not overstate the subject. India is the only democracy in the world that still has an issue with famines. India has roving paramilitary armies in some of its states. It also has some severe sectarian problems between hindus and muslims. And add to that the struggles between the socialists and the nationalists in India and you have a potential for some problems. India has very volatile relations with nearby Pakistan. So nuke proliferation clearly has some down-sides too it.

refused to provide India with nuclear fuel etc until it signs the NPT

Why the heck should they give India the benefits of the NPT without any of the responsibilities? If India wants to get nuke fuel from the international community, then it will have to participate in the NPT, like anyone else would.

India is now well on the way to nuclearise its energy production

Considering that the US has one of the best sites on the planet to store its nuke waste, Yucca Mountain, where the heck is India going to store its nuke waste? Is this something that is being talked about in india? Because a storage site must be dry and tectonically stable for the long term, I don't think any part of india meets that qualification.


mojo4sale
.On the other they strike a deal with Pakistans greatest adversary.
Something smells, in fact something absolutely stinks.

India is the more 'reasonable' long term partner in that section of the world for the United States. Its an open liberal democracy with growing economic ties to the US and a big exchange of population due to immigration. Pakistan is an ally becaouse of musharraf, who is a dictator, a very benign dictator who took over from a corrupted democratic government, but a dictator nonetheless. In 50 years, India is going to be pretty much the same as it is now, just wealthier and stronger. Pakistan might not even exist in 50 years. Who knows what will happen in Pakistan without musharaf.
Having said that, pakistan has, in many ways, a democratic system in place that is growing in strength, merely under the director-ship of Musharaf, who does, to an extent, run the country because the public accepts him. So its not a case of an 'evil strong-man thuggish dictator' like with iraq. Pakistan stands a good chance of becoming a stable democracy post Musharaf.


Will we now need to add the asian sub continent to this list

What do you mean 'add'? US connections in India aren't going to make india an islamic republic or a terrorist state. If anything, with the US as an ally of India, and as an ally of Pakistan, it will force US interests to be for long term peace between the two countries. Already we see Indian nuke plants under a military programme becomming civilian and open to inspection. The US will also be able to use its influence to keep the two countries from being at each other's throats so much.


through nuclear deal.Have you noticed who else they share a border with.Hmmmmm.....

What do borders matter when we're talking about global thermonuclear war with ICBMs that zoom into space?

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.

Big difference between building nukes on yer own and being involved in an international blackmarket for nuke weapons and tech.

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.

Basically, India represents a counter-balance to islamic fundamentalism in Asia. India has had to deal with zealots for a while, and would make an interesting partner in an expanded war on terror. But this deal should'nt exacerbate the tensions in hindu-muslim relations. They've all already got enough issues to try to kill each other over, 'closer relations with the US' doesn't add much to it.

At no time have i said that India is doing anything wrong.

That doesn't make sense. Its an agreement between India and the US. You can't just say that the US is doing something wrong, but then that india is blameless and that that the agreement is overall good. Obviously the US is acting out of its own bests interest, but that goes for every nation, including india.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2smart2curious
but can u trust ahmedijined who goes on harping about israels destruction, surely a . of state will show some political tact n diplomacy as not to air his personal views to the whole world


It is hard to answer it, but to be fair do we not do the same? Remember the talk of crushing Communism? Remember Iraq? Regime change is in reality no different all it means is removing a leader from a Nation and placing someone else in charge? This is what he means by "Destruction".

People, left, right and center, seem to think he means getting rid of Israel but all he means is putting an Arab-Friendly/Pro-Arab or whatever in charge, there are parts of Israel far too important to destroy and he knows it. Either he hates Jewish people having the land due to race or religion and if it is religion he'll not dare destroy those sites...they're far too important and the backlash would turn the Islamic World against him.

----

On the main issue, the U.S. should be careful - India, can be seen as a threat to many Islamic Nation's and their is a fine balance, one on protecting their interests in India and the other in not causing more terrorist attacks. The best way to do so is to begin to bring more Islamic Government's into the fold and treat them the same as they do the Non-Islamic Government's.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
placing someone else in charge? This is what he means by "Destruction".

What are you kidding? He doesn't mean regime change, he wasnts the state of isreal to no longer exist and a new arab state to replace it. The US destroyed hussein's regime, and replaced it with a democratic one, ahemenidijad and his cohort want to destroy the state of israel and rework the borders entirely to make a new state for the arabs. And if its ahmedinijad, student radical for the establishment of the islamic republic of iran, doing it, its clear that it'd be replaced by an islamic republic.

And what do you think one of the first things that this arab state will have its parliament address? That the 'new immigrants' should be removed perhaps?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Iran has Jewish people living their as well as Christian's, the only thing that would change in his ideal world would be who is in charge. This is no different to what many Government's of the World desire - in fact, many people on this site desire to see the Iranian Government gone and replaced by another Government which they see as fair.

To be fair, I'd not put it passed the Iranian President to want to have control of the World if not at least the Middle East, fact is with Nuclear Weapons or without he can't do this. We all know the only thing he can do is stop a large external force from attacking him without backlash and in many cases this is better. Iraq for example...

Iran will change, people know it will but we can't do it for them. If people bothered to watch the reports, watch and listen to what people say in Iran they like the Western lifestyle but if we attack, if we bomb them or Israel or anyone else does you'll shift the balance of power away from the President and the current population and make it another heaven for terrorists. In fact, even U.N. Sanctions could do this, they'll punish the poor, those starving already.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Iran has Jewish people living their as well as Christian's

I am well aware of the religious diveristy present in the middle east. However, I strongly suspect that should an islamic republic made up of israel and the occupied territories be formed, that all zionist occupiers would be expelled/exiled.


the only thing that would change in his ideal world would be who is in charge. This is no different to what many Government's of the World desire

Its quite different. He's talking about the destruction of the nation of israel, the breakdown of its borders and the movement of another population of people en mass into it. This is not regime change.


- in fact, many people on this site desire to see the Iranian Government gone and replaced by another Government which they see as fair.

Indeed, regime change. What ahmidinijad is talking about is like destroying the government, replacing it with chrisitian elites, kicking out the zoroasterians, and then merging the country with afghanistan.


if we bomb them or Israel or anyone else does you'll shift the balance of power

The local power will change unfavourably, true. The regional and international power, however, will be re-aligned to our interests. Put into new order.

But lets try to re-focus on the indian-us nuke proliferation agreement..er..I mean 'treaty of friendship and nicety'

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

mojo4sale
.On the other they strike a deal with Pakistans greatest adversary.
Something smells, in fact something absolutely stinks.


Nygdan
India is the more 'reasonable' long term partner in that section of the world for the United States. Its an open liberal democracy with growing economic ties to the US and a big exchange of population due to immigration. Pakistan is an ally becaouse of musharraf, who is a dictator, a very benign dictator who took over from a corrupted democratic government, but a dictator nonetheless. In 50 years, India is going to be pretty much the same as it is now, just wealthier and stronger. Pakistan might not even exist in 50 years. Who knows what will happen in Pakistan without musharaf.
Having said that, pakistan has, in many ways, a democratic system in place that is growing in strength, merely under the director-ship of Musharaf, who does, to an extent, run the country because the public accepts him. So its not a case of an 'evil strong-man thuggish dictator' like with iraq. Pakistan stands a good chance of becoming a stable democracy post Musharaf.


I agree to a certain extant. though it was a little disturbing to see Imran Khan placed under house arrest so that he could not take part in protests whilst GWB was visiting.Not always a benign dictator.



mojo4sale
Will we now need to add the asian sub continent to this list


Nygdan
What do you mean 'add'? US connections in India aren't going to make india an islamic republic or a terrorist state. If anything, with the US as an ally of India, and as an ally of Pakistan, it will force US interests to be for long term peace between the two countries. Already we see Indian nuke plants under a military programme becomming civilian and open to inspection. The US will also be able to use its influence to keep the two countries from being at each other's throats so much.


Only, i think, if Pakistan gets a favourable deal from the US as well.



mojo4sale
through nuclear deal.Have you noticed who else they share a border with.Hmmmmm.....


Nygdan
What do borders matter when we're talking about global thermonuclear war with ICBMs that zoom into space?


I wasnt talking about global thermonuclear war.I was making the point that it is more strategic for the US rather than any benevolance on their part.



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.


Nygdan
Big difference between building nukes on yer own and being involved in an international blackmarket for nuke weapons and tech.


Agreed, but my point is one more is one too many imo.


mojo4sale
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.


Nygdan
Basically, India represents a counter-balance to islamic fundamentalism in Asia. India has had to deal with zealots for a while, and would make an interesting partner in an expanded war on terror. But this deal should'nt exacerbate the tensions in hindu-muslim relations. They've all already got enough issues to try to kill each other over, 'closer relations with the US' doesn't add much to it.


Ever heard of the straw that broke the camels back!



mojo4sale
At no time have i said that India is doing anything wrong.


Nygdan
That doesn't make sense. Its an agreement between India and the US. You can't just say that the US is doing something wrong, but then that india is blameless and that that the agreement is overall good. Obviously the US is acting out of its own bests interest, but that goes for every nation, including india.


I was being portrayed as being anti India, which was not the case, and i havent actually said that anyone is doing anything wrong, just that i found the timing of the deal intriguing, and the fact that on the surface at least that India was gaining a lot more from the deal than the US.This leads me to believe that their is more to the deal than is being made public.And also leads me to wonder wether anyone actually bothers to read all the posts in a thread.

Luvs Ya All Anyways
M4S



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
blessed are the peacemakers.....

www.breitbart.com...

appearantly bush isn't one.

is there any other president that has the power to turn a generally peaceful nation into chaos, just by a visit?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Good link dawnstar, violence escalating between hindu and muslim, a point that i was trying to make in earlier posts, coincedental to bush's visit and the timing of nuclear deal announcement. Maybe the two are unrelated but im not convinced. Surely i am being paranoid to think that this maybe exactly what bush and the US govt were hoping for. Further divisions between muslims and the rest of the world. I hope im wrong.

Peace
M4S



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   


Luvs Ya All Anyways
M4S

Group Hug!



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
is there any other president that has the power to turn a generally peaceful nation into chaos, just by a visit?

?

15 people died in some bombings. THis isn't all that unusual for india. There is regularly agitation between hindu nationalists and muslims in country, let alone paramilitary conflict between foreign muslims and insurgents in kashmir, renegade seperatists in ceylon, and other roving paramiliatary bands in other states.

All indians aren't Ghandi.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I agree that the violence on its own isnt unusual, but there were at least 3 other unexploded bombs discovered(fortunately)as well as the ones that detonated, only days after president Bush's visit and announcement when i hadnt heard of any recent violence.Doesnt this make you feel even a little uneasy.Of course without any admissions by the terrorists as to their aims it is only speculation, but my bat senses are tingling.

Cheers
M4S



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I think there is more to the bomb explosion than we may be thinking.

It could be done, some extremist,

a) To express angry against the US
and
b) Explode it where Hindu/Muslims could be killed to rouse sentiments.

This could be done by Hindu extremist or Muslim extremist to give rise to tension. It could be done by the US to raise the concern of communial instability and hence reject the plea.

Every nation has internal problems. United States had it with the Negro community and white extremist. So did Australia. Just recently, in december did the world not see the racial spur with the lebanese community in Cronulla in Sydney.
The point which i am trying to make is due to a small fraction within the community should the progress of a nation be put on hold.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Not sure how your legislature works in America, is this deal likely to run into some serious problems or is it just making noise , so the constituents think they are doing their job then getting it rubber stamped.


from new york timesPresident Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached a formal agreement on Mr. Bush's visit to New Delhi this month. But the deal is subject to the approval of Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the nations that control nuclear trade. And the deal violates American law and the suppliers' group practice because India has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Concerns over proliferation and the continued secrecy of India's nuclear weapons program leave many members of Congress wary. Representative Tom Lantos, the California Democrat, agreed to co-sponsor the bill with Mr. Hyde, though he is undecided. Lynne A. Weil, an aide, said Mr. Lantos "is aware that the questions it raises about nuclear non-proliferation are profound."
Mr. Burns said Thursday, "We are confident we can answer the critics." The debate, he acknowledged, is likely to take months, and he said the vast majority of senators and representatives remained undecided. Congressional officials agreed.
"A great number of members of Congress need to have further discussion and further testimony," he said. Acknowledging that the administration has a long way to go to win majority support in Congress, he added: "We are encouraged by the numbers of senators and representatives who tell us, 'You are on the right track. We like the agreement.' "


www.nytimes.com...

Also interesting interview here(seems unbiased)

www.cfr.org...

If this deal goes through is the NPT a waste of paper, will china and others decide that whats good for India is good for them. ok they have a good record but all it takes is a change of govt, an incident, an accident?I say to India ,fine join the nuclear superpowers but do so as a partner in the NPT.Why is that so hard?



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Congress is the body that makes foreign treaties in the United States, not the President. The President can 'make deals', but yes, they have to be approved by Congress. As far as this deal meaning a scrapping of the NPT, well, considering that Iran isn't cooperating with the IAEA, but there are no real provisions to stop this, then whats the sense of the NPT anyways, no?

The world is unipolar now, not split between warring capitalist and communist camps, so there isn't as much of a need for third party-neutral agreements like the NPT to accomplish the goals of the NPT anyways. IOW, Any country that wants to increase its nuke stockpile will have to have the tacit permission of the United States today, de facto, so the NPT might be superfluous.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Congress is the body that makes foreign treaties in the United States, not the President. The President can 'make deals', but yes, they have to be approved by Congress. As far as this deal meaning a scrapping of the NPT, well, considering that Iran isn't cooperating with the IAEA, but there are no real provisions to stop this, then whats the sense of the NPT anyways, no?


But Iran will pay the price for not complying(according to GWB).



Originally posted by Nygdan
The world is unipolar now, not split between warring capitalist and communist camps, so there isn't as much of a need for third party-neutral agreements like the NPT to accomplish the goals of the NPT anyways. IOW, Any country that wants to increase its nuke stockpile will have to have the tacit permission of the United States today, de facto, so the NPT might be superfluous.


Thats what i was thinking, but is it right?, who voted for the US to be the arbiter of who can and cant have nuclear programs.It really does need to be a joint venture of the nuclear powers no matter what the framework, leaving these decisions to one individual nation is asking for trouble. I believe that china and nth korea are still communist, sure china is evolving, but if the NPT becomes nothing more than scrap paper whats to stop china from ramping up their nuclear programs?Do you think France will ask the US for approval if they decide to restart testing and production if there is no treaty!



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
who voted for the US to be the arbiter of who can and cant have nuclear programs.

Well, no one of course. But then again, who's going to stop the US from doing so?? Its not 'right', but its also not right that iran got nuke tech and expertise via the NPT and isn't living up to its obligations under the NPT.


It really does need to be a joint venture of the nuclear powers no matter what the framework,

It could work out nicely that way, however, the NPT, as we can see wrt Iran, has no 'teeth' as they say. The UN army isn't going to blockade iranian ports until the cooperate, no?? I agree, its not really in anyone's interest to have it left entirely up to the US, its not even in the US's interests, because it doesn't help the US's standing in teh world, and it will become increasingly difficult for the US to actualy manage all those programs as time goes on. Far better to have an effective international agreement and system, yes. But, just as bad would be to do nothing or stick with a weak international system, like the one that exists now, especially bad for the US.


I believe that china and nth korea are still communist, sure china is evolving, but if the NPT becomes nothing more than scrap paper whats to stop china from ramping up their nuclear programs?

The threat of nuclear annihilation and invasion from the US. Whereas before, there was the issue of a soviet nuke arsenal and soviet army to counter-balance the US.



Do you think France will ask the US for approval if they decide to restart testing and production if there is no treaty!

Sure. If they didn't ask, the US would get invovled, and in all likelyhood approve anyway.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Yeh i mostly agree with your points, but i just like throwing stuff out there to see if it has any merit. One thing i didnt agree with, France, guarantee they wont ask for permission.Look back over their history regarding nuclear programs.They pretty much did whatever they wanted no matter the consequences.Nuclear tests in the pacific,rainbow warrior etc.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I think there is some confusion between the CTBT and the NPT..
Back to the basics ppl:
CTBT
NPT

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mikesingh
But, India is the biggest democracy with a rule of law

Lets not overstate the subject. India is the only democracy in the world that still has an issue with famines. India has roving paramilitary armies in some of its states. It also has some severe sectarian problems between hindus and muslims. And add to that the struggles between the socialists and the nationalists in India and you have a potential for some problems. India has very volatile relations with nearby Pakistan.

All very good points by Nygdan but however, none of the above issues has anything remotely to do with nuclear proliferation issues. There is no threat of their government collapsing or their military attempting coups or them having any strong sentiments towards known international terrorist organizations. Also, most conflicts are relegated to low income and/or political and religious issues which dont need money to finance themselves and thus the sale of nuclear knowhow or material is again not likely.


Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mikesingh

refused to provide India with nuclear fuel etc until it signs the NPT

Why the heck should they give India the benefits of the NPT without any of the responsibilities? If India wants to get nuke fuel from the international community, then it will have to participate in the NPT, like anyone else would.


There are some fundamental fallacies in the above statements. The indian position has been pro-non proliferation since the beginning, however their terms to sign the NPT were that they do so as a "nuclear state" . The West wanted India to sign the NPT as a non-nuclear state where it would have to relinquish all its nuclear weapons and stop nuclear weapons research. A foolish position if there was one given the fact that China is a signatory to NPT as a nuclear state and nobody can put thier trust in a piece of paper as a guarantee for national security. I think they should be applauded for not signing the NPT as a non-nuclear state. Unlike Iran which despite signing as a non-nuclear state has aimed to purse nuclear weapon research.



Originally posted by Nygdan


Originally posted by mikesinghIndia is now well on the way to nuclearise its energy production

Considering that the US has one of the best sites on the planet to store its nuke waste, Yucca Mountain, where the heck is India going to store its nuke waste? Is this something that is being talked about in india? Because a storage site must be dry and tectonically stable for the long term, I don't think any part of india meets that qualification.


Again the statements above are fallacious. The US may have some of the best sites for nuclear storage but in comparison, France has much more nuclear waste material per capita than the US. Also add to this the fact that unlike in the 60s and the 70s reactors, the more modern adaptations produce significantly less nuclear waste and most of this waste can be reused as well.

As for India storing its nuke waste, have you seen India on the map ? Its a HUGE country with diverse ecology and terrain. A conceivable facility near the Himalaya's would put YUcca Mountain to shame in both safety and size. Also you make it sound like the whole of India is some wet amazon jungle with multiple fault lines. That is not true at all. The Indian subcontinent is by and large quite tectonically stable. As for dry, why would it need to be dry when most facilities are stored underground and isolated ?


[edit on 5-10-2008 by IAF101]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join