Printable View
Opinions? I honestly don't think that we should be helping the India devleop their civlian nuclear program. They have not signed the NNPT
and have thumbed their noses at the rest of the world by making nuclear weapons. If they would sign it and abide by the treaty by destroying their nuclear weapons I would have no trouble supporting them. I really hope Congress votes this down, but unforunately, it doesn't look that way.
Well for one thing I think they will deffinetly feel safer with them because of their radical neighbors; Pakistan. I think it's great that we're helping because as you know, too many people live in poverty in India because of the lack of proper power supply. If the United States were helping with the military nuclear program I might agree with you, but I see no harm in helping with the civilian program.
As for not signing the NNPT, I'd say when Pakistan signs it, India probably will too. They'd both have to do it at the same time. If you haven't heard (from being in Europe for the past few weeks), you might be shocked to hear about some rescent terrorist bombings in India.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...day051030.html
Just wanted to show you that, so you know tensions are not slowing between the two. :shame:
:bow:
It's a dangerous area to play around in, what with Pakistan, China and India having nukes and not liking each other much (certainly Pakistan and India). Certainly it's dangerous to think along lines of helping India along as a counter against Pakistan; that kind of approach has led to bad situations in smaller scale areas, let alone with those two.
There's harm in it with Iran; why not India? I know they've already got nukes, but advanced civilian technology still advances military technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Radical neighbors? Nuclear weapons were hardly needed against Pakistan. The population of India was about 9 to 10 times larger than that of Pakistan with more advanced militray hardware. I'm not understanding why nukes ever made you feel safer. Pakistan developed them in reponse to India.Quote:
Well for one thing I think they will deffinetly feel safer with them because of their radical neighbors; Pakistan.
I can't link this because I read it in the economist, but nuclear power is only going to supply 4% of India's power.Quote:
I think it's great that we're helping because as you know, too many people live in poverty in India because of the lack of proper power supply.
The technology could be used for military purposes also. It is not solely civilian. Like I also said before, if India wants the technology, sign the NNPT.Quote:
If the United States were helping with the military nuclear program I might agree with you, but I see no harm in helping with the civilian program.
I have heard. This happened before I left. Pakistan's government was not responsible for the attack, a small group of terrorists were. I don't see how nuclear weapons will help this. Like I also said before, the reason Pakistan has weapons is because India obtained them in the first place.Quote:
As for not signing the NNPT, I'd say when Pakistan signs it, India probably will too. They'd both have to do it at the same time. If you haven't heard (from being in Europe for the past few weeks), you might be shocked to hear about some rescent terrorist bombings in India.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...day051030.html
Just wanted to show you that, so you know tensions are not slowing between the two. :shame:
Well that 4% will help many people. It will not do a great deal, but anything will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I personally don't think India has any other plans than to use it for civilians, but I have a biased being half Indian. I don't see the problem, but I can see where you're coming from, but it seems the Congress sees it my way.
:bow:
EDIT:Bias not biased...^^
My point with the 4% was: Why put so much money and time into something that isn't going to have that huge of a payoff? It is better spent somewhere else. We aren't just giving India this for free they still have to pay for it. We are giving them access to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
India still has a larger nuclear program under development. It seems they do have other plans and there is a large percent chance it may be used for militray reasons.
All this is going to show the world is that if you are friends with the United States, well damn any international treaty. You can do what you like and still get rewarded. What excuse do have for not letting Iran and North Korea have nukes?
Well we could say they scare us. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
As for India (this is a joke), remember we're all peace loving people like Ghandi remember? :2thumbsup:
4 percent of 1 billion is 40 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
~:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oaty
Damn, how did I ever pass my math courses!?
Australia won't sell Uranium to India until it signs the NPT even though there has been some pressure to do so.
India also thinks that there are going to be no consequences if it doesn't sign the NPT because they think their growing economy is too large a pie for the US to ignore. Essentially they think they can buy out the US to ignore the NPT.
They can probably do that.
However, I have less qualms about India gaining additional nuclear abilities than many other countries, because they are a democracy, they don't hate us for supporting Israel to my knowledge, and they have China to worry about, too.
Australia sells Uranium to China as they have signed the NPT...
Past behaviour is a good sign for future behaviour, but it isn't ironclad.
Nor would I be to happy with a country that thinks because of its growing economic clout they can ignore treaties that are supposed to create a more peaceful world. Their intent speaks volumes by their statement that they can ignore treaties as they are too sweet and economic deal for the US... they have you by the short and curlies and aren't afraid to apply the squeeze.
Imagine what they will be like when they really need something...
This kind of view, and the belief of some that particular countries have moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
right to nuclear weaponry is baffling at times. None of us, including the states
that do not feature on international buddy lists, want to face annihilation. And
assuming a country that doesn't fit the 'democracy' ideal does launch an attack,
they would face a devastating retaliation. They themselves are fully aware of
that. To disregard that is rediculous.
This is nothing groundbreaking, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Not exactly, but it paints a much clear image than if we would condem India for posessing such weapons and demand they be destroyed before we shared nuclear technology with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika
Neo - what kind of country would you prefer having nuclear weapons? One that is ruled by an autocratic government with specific, aggressive agendas or one that is Westernizing and has a healthy democracy? I'm not talking specific countries now, but in general. Are you saying that you cannot see the difference between the two?
Good point. ~:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I see no reason for preference. An autocratic goverment with specific,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
aggressive agendas is as dangerous now as a 'healthy' democracy with specific,
aggressive agendas. The point is, none of us will use these weapons, because
to do so would mean the end, particularly for these 'non-specific' autocratic
governments to which you refer.
To date nuclear weapons have only ever been used by a "healthy" westernised democracy. When the bomb goes off, the damage is not ameliorated by the nature of the government that launched it.
As for India's nuclear electricity programme, despite rapid industrialisation, India is still largely a nation of villages, and it is the villages where electrification would greatly help the poorest communities. In the absence of massive investment in a national grid that nuclear electricity will do them no good - it simply can't reach them. A decentralised, locally-controlled programme of renewable generation would be a much greater benefit to the rural poor.
Nuclear generation would basically just favour the urban and power elites, depsite all the hand-wringing about bringing development to the poor.
Very well said. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
@ Banquo - thank you :bow:
I don't know about you, but myself I feel that this sounds awfully like the Cold War, America trying to find buddies against the PRC.
Anyway, limiting help will at most hinder India, but it will not stop them. Take a look at what they've achieved: getting into space without any other country's help, and developing their own nuclear weapons. Don't assume that they can't do it themselves.
Or find someone else to help them out. We aren't the only nation with nuclear energy sources. When it comes to making some dough, there are some countries probably more inclined to ignore international law than the United States.
Most nations wouldn't use nuclear weapons directly. However, if a terrorist organization just happened to acquire a nuclear warhead or dirty bomb, who do you think probably gave it to them? Odds are, I think, not a healthy democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika
Plus, rationality doesn't seem to afflict our friends in North Korea. If that regime was about to be overthrown, I could see them launching nuclear weapons just for the fun of it, to take a bunch of people with them.
Western Democracies tend not to fall into that mindset.
So a free, open democracy is just as likely to start throwing nukes around as a state ruled by a dictator with his own hatreds and ambitions?Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Uh, so what? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Greatest likelihood is one of the former Soviet states, left with no economy, no bureaucracy, and more nukes than they know what to do with. Even if they don't sell them for hard currency, they could lose track of them through lack of bureaucracy. Same applies to North Korea in spades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Most of those countries aren't healthy democracies, huh?
And I getting specific, I could see a nuclear Iran giving materials for a dirty bomb to Hezbollah or some other terrorist organization. If the bombers were good, Israel couldn't even be sure Iran gave them the goods. Net effect: Iran achieves a nuclear strike without much chance at retaliation. Thousands or millions of Israelis die.
Low chance of Iran giving them to terrorists, as material is used, gets traced back to Tehran, Tehran gets turned to glass. Former Soviet states are under the protection of Russia, so they are immune to the US, while depending on the situation North Korea is similarly under the protection of China. If Iran produces nukes, one can be sure they'll keep a mighty close eye on them, since they know everyone else will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Look at the balance between risks and benefits. The most powerful country in the world is already looking for excuses to bomb Iran, up to and including using nukes. Iran will be looking to keep its rep clean when it comes to the ultimate weapons. If they produce their own nukes, they won't use them unless the US or Israel pre-emptively nukes them, or carry out a ground invasion. They certainly wouldn't give them to outsiders for a spiteful attack on Israel - far too great a risk and cost for far too little benefit.
Not too mention Israel is pretty stern about the use of retaliation in the event of a WMD going off within their borders. Not only would Iran get turned into a Nuclear Wasteland, but Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, the UAE, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Krygzstan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakstan would be suite to follow. That is why there should be more apprehension in the region.
Alexander: well, the non 'healthy-democracy' USSR hasn't used any of their nukes when they collapsed. Also, how can you just claim that the 'healthy western democracies' won't use nukes when they've got their backs against the wall? There hasn't been such a situation. Yet.
Let's see: nukes used by "free, open democracies" ..... 2Quote:
So a free, open democracy is just as likely to start throwing nukes around as a state ruled by a dictator with his own hatreds and ambitions?
Nukes used by dictators, terrorists and other fruitbats ..... 0
Can you see a trend here????
That however is a bit misleadingQuote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus