Indian Nuclear Program

[Ice]

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.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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.

[Ice]

Well for one thing I think they will deffinetly feel safer with them because of their radical neighbors; Pakistan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.


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.



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.

Well that 4% will help many people. It will not do a great deal, but anything will help.

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.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

EDIT:Bias not biased...^^

[Ice]

Well that 4% will help many people. It will not do a great deal, but anything will help.

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.

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.

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?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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.

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.

As for India (this is a joke), remember we're all peace loving people like Ghandi remember?

[Oaty]

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.?

4 percent of 1 billion is 40 million.

[Geoffrey S]

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.

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.

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.

[yesdachi]

I say, let capitalism in, there are plenty of private sector companies willing to help out for a price. India has made a mess of their burocratic system and has made it very difficult for business to develop there (too much red tape). I saw a John Stossel show a while back about the difficulties (much needed) electric companies from other countries were having getting permission to set-up an operation there, I remember one company that after years of negotiations finely received approval to build but could not get approval to run power lines.

I don’t really care if they have nuclear power plants but I definitely don’t think my tax dollars should go to funding them when there are companies lining up to work with them. Isn’t there a French company that has made some of the US’s nuclear plants? India seems to just want to try and get some free stuff before they shell out the cash themselves or loosen up their rules and regs.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Looking back, I had thought the Indians were paying us for help. I don't know if they are, and that actually does make the feasability a valid concern. So I concede that point, especially since it appeals to my "screw the world and taxes" instinct.

macsen rufus - the biggest nuclear threats are ustable, undemocratic regimes with such weapons, and terrorists with connections to such regimes. Terrorists especially, since such organizations often don't have homelands that can be harmed by nukes in the same way as a soveirgn nation can be.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that the US is equally likely to use nuclear weapons as North Korea. We have hundreds of times NK's capabilities, but we won't exercise it. I have less faith in that glorious worker's paradise.


In general, I just rather trust India, who is friendly to us, could be fighting the same enemy as us (both radical Islam and potentially China), and is a growing democracy. Compared to nations like Iran or even Pakistan.

Geoffrey S - let's say North Korea's government is going under. Most of the army is marching with the general populace on Pyongyang. Kim Jong-Il and a few of his generals are holed up in a bunker and it looks like the end. What does he do? Sit and take it or go out in a blaze of glory? I'd say the latter, but I'm no expert.

In contrast, a healthy democracy is less likely to be put under those circumstances. Firstly, internal revolt is unlikely, since they could just vote in new leaders. Coups are similarly unlikely.

Outside aggression is generally further reduced by the tendancy of democracies to support each other. If France was militarily threatened by some outside force (but not a nuclear one) then probably Europe and the USA would also be opposing such a force.

I don't think France is as likely to be put in that situation.

And nuclear weapons are always a threat.

[scotchedpommes]

In general, I just rather trust India, who is friendly to us, could be fighting the same enemy as us (both radical Islam and potentially China), and is a growing democracy. Compared to nations like Iran or even Pakistan.

Amusing. Backing still seems to shift towards Pakistan.

President Bush designated Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, making it eligible, among other things, to purchase advanced American military technology. In May, 2006, The Bush administration announced a major sale of missiles to Pakistan, valued at $370 Million USD. [2]

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It was bad for Pakistan to become a nuclear power back in the seventies or eighties. It still isn't a good thing, President Bush's trust in the iron fist of Musharaf notwithstanding.

[Geoffrey S]

Geoffrey S - let's say North Korea's government is going under. Most of the army is marching with the general populace on Pyongyang. Kim Jong-Il and a few of his generals are holed up in a bunker and it looks like the end. What does he do? Sit and take it or go out in a blaze of glory? I'd say the latter, but I'm no expert.

Whatever else, they're not suicidal. I'd say it's more likely they surrender to international courts, just like usually happens. Again, you're assuming the North Korean government is irrational, whereas I assume the opposite; they're certainly no more irrational than the average democratic state, just more brutal. They're out for their own personal survival by now, and using nukes doesn't assist that at all.

But again, placed in such a situation I can't imagine the NK government reacting any differently from any other nation.

In contrast, a healthy democracy is less likely to be put under those circumstances. Firstly, internal revolt is unlikely, since they could just vote in new leaders. Coups are similarly unlikely.

Outside aggression is generally further reduced by the tendancy of democracies to support each other. If France was militarily threatened by some outside force (but not a nuclear one) then probably Europe and the USA would also be opposing such a force.

I don't think France is as likely to be put in that situation.

I know I used France as an example myself, but that was purely taking the situation NK is in right now and applying it to a democracy with nukes. Whether such a situation was likely to happen is besides the point. Perhaps a country such as Israel would have been a better example of a stable democracy that could be in such a situation.

However, India borders on a recent enemy, Pakistan. It also borders on China, not on very friendly terms. Stable democracy or not that's a tense position to be in for any government, and I don't see it as safe for the US government to go meddling in such a hornet's nest. It's also faced with more terrorism on its own soil than most democracies, and until recently Kashmir was consistently in danger of flaring up. So I don't believe India can be declared stable, at least not enough to meddle with its nuclear capabilities.

And nuclear weapons are always a threat.

Yes.

the biggest nuclear threats are ustable, undemocratic regimes with such weapons, and terrorists with connections to such regimes. Terrorists especially, since such organizations often don't have homelands that can be harmed by nukes in the same way as a soveirgn nation can be.

With the first statement I agree; however it's hard enough to cover up government involvement with terrorists, let alone if nuclear weapons are involved. Were that the case they would be traced back to the source, who would receive the full deserved punishment; I can't see a nation taking that risk, not yet in any case.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that the US is equally likely to use nuclear weapons as North Korea. We have hundreds of times NK's capabilities, but we won't exercise it. I have less faith in that glorious worker's paradise.

If you and your country are so confident that is the case, why do you still have nukes at all?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you and your country are so confident that is the case, why do you still have nukes at all?

Actually, while we do have a number of them left, most of the ICBMs have been de-commissioned (or in-progress thereof) and the gravity bombs, artillery shells, and cruise missile warheads are mostly in secure storage and not on active deployment. The days of the hair-trigger MAD "system" are mostly in the past.

Short of being on the receiving end of a nuclear attack, there are very few scenarios in which it would be deemed appropriate to use nuclear thunder to make our point.

The situations in India/Pakistan/China and Israel/Iran? and NK?/China/Japan? are frought with much more tension as they are closer to the old MAD concept. MAD seems to have worked in the Cold War, but it wasn't exactly a relaxing process for the 45 years between the first Soviet Bomb and the breakup of the CCCP.