Nuclear Deal With India a Victory for Bush

[rmnunez]

Jose, its nuclear weapons and the technology to make them whose acquisition and proliferation is forbidden.

[Osborn F Enready]

Looks like things are heating up in the house and senate over this deal more and more each day.

Getting interesting.

[Arkangel]

As long as the first 5 will not give up their nukes, they have no moral high ground to preach others not to follow their footsteps.

If US can have thousands of nukes for its protection and same for the other 4 or other countries who feel threatened.

What if China were to invade India, not that it will happen at present but both countries are growing rapidly and their resources are dwindling, there are water disputes and land disputes between them and that is just on the surface. They did have a war in 60s already and they have border disputes with India and they are very ticked off with India supporting the exiled Tibetian govrnment.

Pakistan to feels threatened by India, though India has not invaded them in the 3 wars they fought and 1 highly escalated battle in Kargil recently. They do feel threatened by their huge neighbour, who they know can take out their army in just a few days in a non-nuclear war.

Isreal, well they are threatened by the entire middle east. They live in a very hostile neighbourhood and they have been in War with egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Why shouldnt they have a nuke. Just because the original 5 says so or more to the specific US says so.

Now same argument for North Korea, Iran and other countries.

On the matter as to why India did not sign NPT, they feel that is a very unjust law. Why should they be denied a nuke when their very hostile neighbour China has one. China has invaded India once in the 60s and that is what sparked off the nuke program in India. They do not feel threatened by Pakistan to go nuclear but by China. China does not see Skimim, a Indian state as part of India. They claim that to be their teritory and same for parts to of the Assam state in northeastern part of India. This dispute has been the cause of a war and many skirmishes.

Iran at present has no percieved threat to their country other than Iraq and US. Now why would they need a nuke is beyond millitary strategy or any kind of offensive threat. Isreal cannot launch an invasion on Iran and nither can Iraq now. Their main motive to go nuclear whould be to take on the global powers and be one.

US to invade Iran is sucide for it, both politically and economically. Sanctions against Iran shall not help, as long as oil runs the global economy. US, I guess at present as no proper policy to tackle this problem. If Iran goes nuclear, wont all those terroist outfit be having a huge smirk on their face. They now have a home market for a nuke technology. It is not that hard to build a bomb, any bimbo with a physic and electronics degree can build one but the fissile matterial is hard to come by. They already have good scientist on their team, A Q Khan was just one who got caught. Iran able to produce nuclear fuel and matterial is just a boon and blessing for them. Iran is not democracy, it is a fundamentalist dictatorship. So you get my point. A nuclear Iran either just for civilian use or to make a bomb is threat to the entire nonmuslim world who are threatend by extremist Islam. Pakistan though a nuclear state is under tight leash control by the US.

India and Israel on the other hand do not employee muslims in their nuclear reactors or bomb making facilities. They are as much threatened by terrorism as the west is. Recently 2 huge bombs were exploded in a hindu holy city in India killing many. And recently they did a survey on how many muslims work in sensitive areas of their defence establisment and as per my sources some were transfered from those area. Isreal do not have any muslims working in their defence establisments.

The threat is not Iran having nuke but giving unmarked or unverifible-to-the-source fuel to make bombs to groups like Al qeada or other shadowy terrorist organisations is.

I guess few years from now, we might be able to even buy a fully assembled nukes in some arms expos :rolleyes: if Iran is to go through its nuke bomb program which they will do certainly if no one is to stop them.

[rmnunez]

On the fairness of the NPT you should realize its an integral element of the IAEA, that membership in the latter requires ratification of the former and that breach of the NPT carries sanctions from the IAEA. All countries (other than the Security Council permanents) which seek nuclear weapons must breach the NPT and then the IAEA threatens sanctions. The common practice has been for such governments to then engage in a give and take on conditions for their continued membership in the IAEA.

[bishop]

to the best of my knowledge, the application of sanctions is not automatic... if i'm right, that's just another reason why the NPT is de facto obsolete.

[Scribbler1]

Treaty or no treaty, my biggest worry is that clown in the WH will order a strike, based on his presidential right to do so, and then dare the Congress to try and stop what happens next. He CAN do that, you know.

[rmnunez]

The application of sanctions is not automatic, IAEA (as any UN agency) depends on the willingness of the Security Council members and the resources these will put into the effort. The magnitude of the sanctions depends solely on the importance each of the Council members attaches thereto.

Arguably, as India acquired the technology, its emergent leadership of the third world, ambitious projections of market access and economic impact, and its not only stable and democratic traditions, but especially its pacifist culture -were taken into account and an accomodation reached.

The Israelis acquired the technology largely from France, blame may fall on the US for not curbing the Israeli's acquisition, but there was that regional dynamic and its local Cold War projections, I think the differentials were so great it could be calculated the Arabs would take generations to pose any challenge. Besides, the frogs are terribly irritating and it probably wasn't easy dealing with them who had important capital investments and projections at stake, very 'uppity' too.

I don't think Councilmembers took due account of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry and the latter's inevitable pursuit of the weapons. What happened there and who transfered this technology? Pakistan is not a traditional and longstanding ally, despite the warmth of relations now, can the US be blamed nonetheless, was North Korea involved, how about China?

The 'genie' is escaping from her bottle with Pakistan and North Korea most to blame. This was foreseable and safeguards were implemented, such as the creation and endowment of the IAEA as well as its strengthening in recent years. Unfortunately the IAEA, NPT and the slew of aspirational international agreements endorsed in the aftermath of the numerous US/Soviet nuclear summits, have not been enough to completely contain nuclear weapons technology, as seen above.

I think Iran's acquisition of nuclear technology virtually guarantees Israel will experience a new national holocaust, but this is said to be "warmongering". Frankly I think the prognosis is very bad, the Iranians are probably the last government I'd like to see as a nuclear power. I can tolerate and accept Islamic fundamentalism as a concept or doctrine, I can even grasp the dynamics of asymetric warfare and a revolutionary resort to terrorist tactics, but I haven't reached the moronic stupidity to accept the combination of those two with some half-baked notion of an absolute sovereign right to nuclear armaments.

The Indo-Pakistani nuclear arms race needs to be moderated. China, Russia, Britain and the US all have good reason to be engaged, France has to tag along as well. This deal may be the first in a series as Councilmenbers will bid. India may actually assume a valuable role as arbitrer of the level in western nuclear technology by the mere valuation of its contracts for technology transfer. If they offer the US more in cash value for its nuclear know-how, then presumably it will be better, if France has a better offer, they will have to bid and the US controls the terms.

The Iranians, on the other hand, need to get their nuclear programme reduced to rubble right away, if this doesn't happen the whole world will soon regret it.

[Arkangel]

The entire Security Council, IAEA, NPT, and UN is just unfair to a lot of countries. The big 5 controling everything.

That is why after so many treatys and pacts their are a still nations who will break them and go ahead. Everybody feels betrayed by the UNSC. Half on humanity is not even considered while planing anything. How can anybody leave out countires like Brazil, India, and other big and small countries from UNSC. This is the main reason for proliferation, the big 5 trying to dominate the rest of the world. Some wont take it. Iran is one of those countries which does not want to be dominated by anyone and they think going nuclear is going to help.

Iran going nuclear is a big no no for many reason.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Arkangel The entire Security Council, IAEA, NPT, and UN is just unfair to a lot of countries. The big 5 controling everything. That is why after so many treatys and pacts their are a still nations who will break them and go ahead. Everybody feels betrayed by the UNSC. Half on humanity is not even considered while planing anything. How can anybody leave out countires like Brazil, India, and other big and small countries from UNSC. This is the main reason for proliferation, the big 5 trying to dominate the rest of the world. Some wont take it. Iran is one of those countries which does not want to be dominated by anyone and they think going nuclear is going to help. Iran going nuclear is a big no no for many reason.

Agreed, and to be fair, that is the reason the "big 5" try to control everything. Say what you want about them, these countries are among the most stable and diverse in the world and as such are usually more responsible when it comes to such weapons.

[jose]

Quote by: rmnunez Jose, its nuclear weapons and the technology to make them whose acquisition and proliferation is forbidden.

but nuclear power for energy is a right of every member, right

[rmnunez]

Ark, half of humanity wasn't in the UN when its Security Council did most of the treaties governing nukes.

Jose, nuclear technology for peaceful uses is allowed, this is what Iran insists is their intent -do you really believe one of the world's most important oil producers is actually in pursuit of alternatives to fossil fuels? If so, I've got a bridge for sale you will be interested in.

[jose]

what i or you belive has nothing to do with Irans right to build nuclear power stations, with the proper inspections in place oh and while the inpectors are in the area they could check on Iswaels 200 undeclared nuclear weapons

¨Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium during the 1960s despite a warning from military intelligence that it could help the Israelis to develop a nuclear bomb¨
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polit...727978,00.html

[rmnunez]

Jose, there are no IAEA inspections in Iran now, they expelled the inspectors, broke the seals on their reactor and refuse to allow continued monitoring -this on their "civilian" nuclear installations.

Khamenei intervened Tuesday to lay down the one of his strongest statements on the nuclear issue, apparently aimed at ending any compromising tone from moderates within the Iranian government. He told Iranian diplomats who were called home for consultations that there would be no backing down. "The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue ... as breaking the country's independence which will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," Khamenei said, according to state television. "This path is irreversible and the foreign policy establishment has to bravely defend Iran's rights," he told the diplomats.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-14-11-00-59

[Rainbow]

At the rate that President Bush is going, Iran will be a global superpower before too long. For all of the axis-of-evil rhetoric that has come out of the White House, the reality is that the Bush administration has done more to empower Iran than its most ambitious ayatollah could have dared to imagine. Tehran will be able to look back at the Bush years as a golden era full of boosts from America, its unlikely ally. Fast-forward to Thursday's nuclear deal with India, in which President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India despite its nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This would be a bad idea at any time, rewarding India for flouting the basic international understanding that has successfully discouraged other countries from South Korea to Saudi Arabia from embarking on their own efforts to build nuclear weapons. But it also undermines attempts to rein in Iran, whose nuclear program is progressing fast and unnerving both its neighbors and the West. The India deal is exactly the wrong message to send right now, just days before Washington and its European allies will be asking the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council for further action. Iran's hopes of preventing this depend on convincing the rest of the world that the West is guilty of a double standard on nuclear issues. Mr. Bush might as well have tied a pretty red bow around his India nuclear deal and mailed it as a gift to Tehran.

"Fast-forward" deal with India is the answer to events in Asia. U.S. needs to uphold good relationship with India, though. U.S. has hopes India would become a good partner so it has awarded that state, as a token for a future co-operation.

Teheran is assemblying a "nuke" ? U.S. has enough power to "re-structure" that whole project.
Whoever has a nuclear weapon, No one can use it in the Middle-East region.

"Basic international understanding" ? What is that ?
"Poetry" - made by NYTimes, and only :-)

[rmnunez]

It could be the Indian deal just had to be made or they would turn to another source. The IAEA has its hands full with Iran and the DPRK. The UN couldn't handle Security Council sessions on sanctions against India with the united statians concerned over the DPRK and ready to jump on Iran.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

India and Russia in energy talks
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says he is confident of greater nuclear power cooperation with Russia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4815588.stm

Poor Bush

[rmnunez]

Are we getting better at this or are the maneuvers too predictable?

[Arkangel]

The Indo-Russia nuclear went through. The russians are supplying urianium to the Indians now. Everybody is playing one another. The stakes are too high. Foreign Policy is a dirty business. After oil politics in the past, it is going to be nuclear politics. Energy runs the global economy and he who runs the energy runs the world.

It was as if they were playing the waiting game. Russia is not going to let India go from its side. India trusts Russia more than they do the US. US is a tricky customer for them. For that matter nobody in the world trusts US.

A recent survey done in India about how they view the US. It turned out they view more positively and friendly than anyother country does the US, next only to a American citizen. So the people their even after the protest against Bush they support americans.

Its only the left wing parties and muslims which hates US as usual :rolleyes:

[Arkangel]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Agreed, and to be fair, that is the reason the "big 5" try to control everything. Say what you want about them, these countries are among the most stable and diverse in the world and as such are usually more responsible when it comes to such weapons.

These are the countries which have actually used WMDs, and faught major world wars. No wonder the world is going down, it is run by the scum of the planet who dress as nobels.

You leave out South America, Africa, 1/3 of Asia and say it is good the big 5 run things. It is already showing that their policies are use less. Nobody can dictate terms to another and say they are doing it to the good of the planet. The big5 are ruining the planet. They are the biggest polluters, biggest arms producers. It is their arms that are being used in Africa to slaughter inocents. Do you think it is proper to tell a poor african, you better die of AIDS cause the medicine bill is going to kill you in debt for life anyway. The big5 in which the US controls everything. From AIDS medicine policies to Nuclear techonlogy. You make patents to prevent people in Asia and Africa from obtaining the medicines they need by making them expensive to buy. It is good that countires like Brazil and India are breaking those laws which the big5 made about patents.

No country in South America took part in world war or other people business other than killing themselves. Why should they not be represented in the UNSC. Isnt democracy meaning everybody takes part or is it only for Americans and the other big4 to take part. That democracy is only good for their people and not for africans and asian and south americans. Why not say Florida is not fit to take part in democracy since they are so unstable and live them out. That way there can be a much better and stable result. Every country has the right to get involved in what happens to this planet not just the big5. Like how every citizen has the right to vote, freedom to express and freedom to live. every nation to has the same rights. But the big5 does not like democracy when it comes to the world.

[rmnunez]

Mexico sent a squadron to help the united statians (and allies) in the Philippines.