Indian Nuclear Program

**Ice** · 07-25-2006, 22:20

Originally Posted by Oaty

4 percent of 1 billion is 40 million.

Damn, how did I ever pass my math courses!?

**Papewaio** · 07-26-2006, 00:48

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.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 07-26-2006, 01:08

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.

**Papewaio** · 07-26-2006, 01:14

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...

**scotchedpommes** · 07-26-2006, 01:25

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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.

This kind of view, and the belief of some that particular countries have more
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.

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

This is nothing groundbreaking, is it?

**Ice** · 07-26-2006, 01:27

Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika

This kind of view, and the belief of some that particular countries have more
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 aware of that.

This is nothing groundbreaking, is it?

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.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 07-26-2006, 03:55

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?

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 07-26-2006, 04:05

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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.

**scotchedpommes** · 07-26-2006, 04:54

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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?

I see no reason for preference. An autocratic goverment with specific,
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.