India Joins Nuclear Market 377
figona brings news that India will be allowed to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). A waiver was approved yesterday that provided an exception to the requirements that India sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. This means India will be able to buy nuclear fuel from the world market and purchase reactors from the US, France, and Russia; something it has been unable to do since it began nuclear testing in 1974 (which inspired the creation of the NSG). The waiver does not include terms to cut off access if India resumes nuclear testing, but the US Congress drafted a letter stating their willingness to do so. Opponents of the waiver have called it a "non-proliferation disaster."
Place your bets now! (Score:5, Insightful)
How many minutes until Pakistan demands the same treatment?
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Informative)
And Pakistan might just get the same treatment India just got, actually. After all, without their help militarily, fighting wars in Afghanistan would be much more difficult.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Funny)
KHHAAAANNNNN!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Given their lack of co-operation regarding Iran's nuclear program (not giving up Khan) I think a nuclear deal like India's with Pakistan is completely off the table for now.
But if democracy takes off, the Taliban are shunned, and Afghanistan clears up it could be back on the table surprisingly quickly. (Or never.. They're at a crossroads right now and I think a lot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One of the areas where Pakistani support is most needed is in Waziristan [wikipedia.org]. This is a region which borders Afghanistan and is technically part of Pakistan, but is effectively controlled by the Taliban and Al Qaeda [wikipedia.org] -- it's generally regarded that if Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri are still alive, this is where they are operating from. I imagine that if India were to attempt to engage in military activities there, even though it isn't really controlled by Pakistan, Pakistan would still see it as an act of war aga
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing preventing India from whooping Pakistani ass is the Chinese and American support the Pakistanis have. If the Americans really wanted Pakistan to be taken out all they would have to do is pressurise the Chinese to back off and stop gifting F 16s to Pakistan and India can take care of the rest.
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck do you know about Pakistan and India? A whooping(sic) can of shit!
India and Pakistan (and in fact Bangladesh too) are the same people! They got divided by the British empire over the ambiguous decision of calling the zone with mostly Muslims "Pakistan". Now in fact, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, and India always was a multi-religious country.
It's the whole bullshit of external empires separating areas into "countries", that originally was the land of intertwined tribes. Those tribes lived side-by-side. And nowadays it's expected that they beat each other up over some made-up bullshit!
It's the same as my father had to experience and caused the death and torture of my uncles and my grandpa in Afghanistan. There the Soviet Union and the USA fought for resources... The Soviets did it by invasion. And the USA did it by giving the Afghanis weapons to fight them. But in fact, nobody cared for the people. Nowadays - after the soviets are gone - the USA *had* to invade Afghanistan, because one of *their own people* turned against them and was supposed to hide there. While in fact he's in USA's allied countries until this day, but they can't attack those countries, because they have the oil *and* the cash, and china supporting them by buying the oil. So the USA can't force those countries to sell to the USA anymore. (Hence the now normalized gas prices in the USA.)
So now the Afghanis have a nearly complete population of people that have never seen anything else than war, children crippled by mines and hate.
And you expect other countries not to hate you(r government)???
So please: If you haven't got a clue, STFU and stay out of other people's business and countries, and stop lamenting about some bullshit intrigues between those countries that your leaders told you!!!
Just so you don't thing I'm trolling here: I am in fact half Afghani and half Luxemburgish, and I like Americans like the ones here on Slashdot, the ones like Jon Steward, and many more. But seriously: Fix your government issues. Shoot people who admit openly that they want to cut the education budget, people who act based on superstition and criminal crooks fucking your constitution system. It's your country! (In fact most countries would be better off if they followed those rules :)
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are mostly right, of course. But keep in mind that politics, ethnocentrism and religious (primarily Islamic) mania has divided the populations of South Asia for some centuries now. The British, much like the Portuguese in Africa, merely exploited divisions that were already present and aggrandized them (they didn't create those divisions) for their own purposes (keep the sheeple fighting each other so they don't notice us while we take over their land, eh wot old chap?)
India mostly survived the pressures of decolonization with it's collective skin intact. B'desh and Pak were less fortunate. Poor Afghanistan has been screwed over by all this most of all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They got divided by the British empire over the ambiguous decision of calling the zone with mostly Muslims "Pakistan".
ORLY ? [infoplease.com]
What is now Pakistan was in prehistoric times the Indus Valley civilization (c. 2500 - 1700 B.C.). A series of invaders - Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and others - controlled the region for the next several thousand years. Islam, the principal religion, was introduced in 711. In 1526, the land became part of the Mogul Empire, which ruled most of the Indian subcontinent from the 16th to the mid-18th century. By 1857, the British became the dominant power in the region. With Hindus holding most of the economic, social, and political advantages, the Muslim minority's dissatisfaction grew, leading to the formation of the nationalist Muslim League in 1906 by Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876 - 1949). The league supported Britain in the Second World War while the Hindu nationalist leaders, Nehru and Gandhi, refused. In return for the league's support of Britain, Jinnah expected British backing for Muslim autonomy. Britain agreed to the formation of Pakistan as a separate dominion within the Commonwealth in Aug. 1947, a bitter disappointment to India's dream of a unified subcontinent. Jinnah became governor-general. The partition of Pakistan and India along religious lines resulted in the largest migration in human history, with 17 million people fleeing across the borders in both directions to escape the accompanying sectarian violence.
My bold.
That reads to me like certain powerful Muslims asked for the partition. But then how would you know, you're only half Afghani.
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Interesting)
Look the Muslims of Northern India had held power before the British took over. So a section of the Muslim Elite thought when they throw out the British they can go back to being kings. Then they realized in a democracy if people started voting on religious lines the Hindus would always be a majority. These people (the Muslim League) were not willing to base their politics on something besides religion nor were they willing to be in permanent opposition (like the South African Whites party nowadays) so they came up with the brilliant idea of a separate nation for Muslims. It would be like if at the end of Apartheid the whites had demanded a separate white state in South Africa. The people of the two releigions had been living together for centuries and it was simply not possible to just separate them. Some so called Muslim majority areas which went to Pakistan were 51% Muslim, 49% Hindus and after partition the 49% had to just get up and leave. And large Muslim majority areas were there at the heart of India which India simply could not give to Pakistan or India would be reduced to a patchwork like Africa. So partition was imperfect,incomplete and stupid , Pakistan a country based on religion is a stupid idea for the 20th century (BTW that goes for Israel too.) But the partition and the corresponding riots/ethnic cleansing which happened crested a lot of enemity between people of the two religions ( I had an Uncle who stayed on in East Pakistan. He was Hindu but he had been a senior police officer under the British and simply didnt believe anyone could touch him but yup he was killed by Muslims during the riots. The rest of the family left with only the clothes on their backs leaving behind lands and factories) Riots happened on both sides but they were a lot worse on the Pakistani side. This was because Pakistan had declared itself a Muslim only state while India had declared itself Secular and still had large Muslim populations in its heartlands so it couldnt carry out the kind of ethnic cleansing Pakistan did. The result at time of Partition the areas that were Pakistan had a 24% Hindu population . Now its less than 4%. India on the other hand started out with a 18% Muslim population which is now 21%. Just in case if you are wondering whether I hate Muslims I dont My wife is Muslim. What I do hate are the Muslim League and its philosophy which caused the partition and am virulently opposed to any philosophy which says people of different religions cannot stay together. The sad thing is Pakistan having being founded by selfih elites who didnt give a damn how many people suffered just as long as they can grab political power has become a totally unstable and dangerous state. Even though the GDP per capita of Pakistan is higher than India it is skewed horribly. There is a class of feudal lords the Bhuttos, the Sharifs etc who own almost all the land not owned by the Army and win all the elections as if the people dont vote for them they will throw the tenants off their land. Most of the rest of the population are no better than serfs like in Imperial Russia over whom the Feudal politicians hold the power of life and death. The only way out of poverty is to join the Army which has had the unfortunate effect of making the Army the strongest institution in the country. The Army on its part can only maintain its prestige and its budget as long as there are conflicts so they have no interest in peace with India or Afghanistan. The feudal politicians have made a deal with the Army that as long as they keep giving half the budget to the Army they can steal the rest and the people can go to hell. No wonder the desperate people are willing to listen to anything (including Islamic fundamentalism) which promises them a way out of their misery. All in all a very bad situation even without China giving them Nukes to try and hamper India's progress. The only solution I see is for India to reabsorb Pakistan and Bangladesh (Given the much faster population growth that has happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh this would result in a cou
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only solution I see is for India to reabsorb Pakistan and Bangladesh
Arre pagal ho gaya hai kya?? Are you fucking insane? India is still very much a developing country with it's own internal issues and problems. You want us to "absorb" a recalcitrant, hostile, genocidal population that is taught to hate before it is taught to read and are ideologically indoctrinated to want our destruction?
Why? We should keep as much distance between us and them as possible and cultivate better relations with western countries instead, focus more intensely on poverty reduction, reducing oil dependency, infrastructure and the anti-AIDS stuff, beef up our miltary to protect our borders and stamp illegal immigration from Nepal and B'Desh, and all that (imagine shouldering those burdens for the starving millions in B'Desh, there are enough of our brothers starving on our own soil).
Pakistan won't last long anyway. Already, East Pakistan broke away, Waziristan declared independence just a few years ago and Balochistan insurgency is in full swing after Nawaab Akbar Bugti has been declared a Shiite "Shaheed' (Islamic martyr) after the Sunni-dominated Pakistan army assassinated him. The Muttahida Qaumi movement is rising in Sindh. Now that Musharraf the dictator is out of the picture they will hold "democratic" (ie staged) referendum, effectively "elect" (ie dragoon) a bunch of Islamic nutters to power like they did with Nawaz Sharif, and start blowing each other up with renewed intensity. India cannot afford to deal with THAT can of worms. Let Pak be America's problem, and Bangladesh remain the royal shithole that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party made it into. We should focus on developing our own country into a stronger and more prosperous nation.
Empire building==bad idea.
Nation building==good idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Such as?
such as Aligarh , Deoband, Bengal, Western Gujarat. In contrast, areas in Pakistan with large Hindu populations in Sindh have been completely cleansed of them.
We've always known you wanted our country. India is an expansionist power that has swallowed up huge territories including Hyderabad, Junagarh, Siachen, Sikkim, Goa, Daman, Diu, and Kashmir. But you will never get Pakistan except over our dead bodies - and yours, once the gamma-radiation-emitting isotopes fall on your land, making it uninhabitable and poisoning it for centuries. Never, as long as we have the strength to fight and defend our beloved country, you will not not get it. Never!
Pakistan is a genocidal Islamic theocracy, combined with a Punjabi-dominated racist ethnocracy that has murdered 3 million Hindus in Bangladesh
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/ [genocidebangladesh.org]
and presently institutionally engages in horrific levels of persecution of Hindu and Christian minorities in their savage little Islamofascist country
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/h [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look your Analysis fails. Here's why. You took the percentages from an old census while the numbers are current. The Muslim population of India is growing much faster than that of Pakistan so the 12.5 million difference has been wiped out. Why is the Muslim population of India growing faster? Because in India the Muslims happen to be poor and backward and poor people have more children while in Pakistan Muslims represent the entire gamut of society from poor to rich so they have an average growth rate. As t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well no. To use that kind of brute force the US would have to be not just the strongest but also stronger than all the rest of the world combined and not just in total but in every small local theater of the world. For example the US would have to have a larger Army than the Russians have in the Caucuses, A larger Army , Navy and Air Force than the Chinese in the Taiwan Straits, A larger navy than the Indians in the Indian Ocean, a larger Air force than the French in West Africa, a larger Navy than the Aust
Re: (Score:2)
It is somewhat irrational to think that some nations can be denied access to a vital technology even when those nations appear to be unstable or vulnerable to takeover by other parties.
I well recall the days of the Cuban missile crises when Russia installed missiles in Cuba while we had missiles installed along the Russian borders. What is good for one is good for all.
Pakistan already has the same treatment (Score:3, Informative)
Or dont you know the Pakistanis were given their nukes by the Chinese. The country is a feudal military dictatorship. Simply not the kind of society to be able to develop Nukes on their own. They are good enough to take Chinese nukes and rebrand them though.
China Test Pak Nukes for Them (Score:4, Informative)
My government is hypocritical (Score:2, Insightful)
As a U.S. citizen, I must say that I am utterly embarrased at the actions of my government. On the one hand, there's no way that they'll let Iran or North Korea even so much as attempt to build a reactor, but as soon as India wants on the scene, oh well, no problem. After all, we wouldn't want them to cut us off from that practically free labor force, right?
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Indians don't go around chanting "Death to America" for starters, nor do they have a crazy self-indulging senseless control freak for the head of their government. India has a tendency to honour international agreements, while the DPRK tends to flout them over and over again.
Besides, anyone has a right to sell something (or not) to someone for whatever reason they have. If I decide I don't want the USA to have any of my little pink bunnies, while letting the UK have them, what's wrong with that? My decision.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want the USA to have any of my little pink bunnies
I suspect we would just pay a defense contractor hundreds
of billions of dollars to develop our own bunnies with huge,
powered exoskeletons and razor sharp teeth.
Then our enemies would be all like: "Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been almost everywhere in South and East Asia. Never been Europe or the Americas though, maybe they shout "Death to America" over there...
I can see no reason why a news organisation would show people in the Middle East shouting death to America, but wouldn't show it if it happened in India. I'm pretty sure it would. It would certainly be a lot more interesting if it happened in India.
But Indians seem more concerned with their internal problems and the cause, rather than concerning themselves with whether it was something the Americans/Europeans did. Which is a complex which occurs a lot in China (generally the newspapers / commentators) and Korea (generally random protests).
And yes I've been to India, Korea and China. All for reasonable amounts of time (over a year each). I have also met a great deal of Iranians, none of whom wished death to America.
And I've never ever seen any Western recorded footage of people in Iran shouting "Death to America", perhaps you should look up the facts of that incident. It was a country wide chant, and it was recorded officially by various Arab channels. It's their government that's crazy, but the Iranians I've met seem much more friendly than most Americans I've met.
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, there's no way that they'll let Iran or North Korea even so much as attempt to build a reactor, but as soon as India wants on the scene
And how many Japanese citizens has India captured and held against their will in the last few decades? How many times have they threatened to wipe a neighbor off the map?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Probably none, nor has Iran [nytimes.com].
It is astounding how much innuendo and false propaganda get hyped in the USA mass media and left essentially uncorrected.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You realize that the article you linked ends by saying that he did say Israel should be wiped off the map, right?
I'll grant you that he didn't say that his country should be the one doing the wiping. There's still a huge difference between a stable democracy (India) and a country where the religious leadership holds a veto over everything (including who can run for office) and which denies the right of one of it's neighbors to exist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You realize that the article you linked ends by saying that he did say Israel should be wiped off the map, right?
I'll grant you that he didn't say that his country should be the one doing the wiping. There's still a huge difference between a stable democracy (India) and a country where the religious leadership holds a veto over everything (including who can run for office) and which denies the right of one of it's neighbors to exist.
I don't think that such a dramatic dichotomy exists. FWIW, Israel plays the democracy card too, though about half of its population isn't represented.
As for the quote, yes I realize what the author said at the end. It is also blatantly dishonest squirming to reach a conclusion that is palletable to the US establishment. Given that the USA supported Saddam's invasion of Iran, resulting in about 1 million dead, and then began to play both sides, I'd say the author's attempt to save face for NYT by providing "
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that such a dramatic dichotomy exists
Then maybe you should do some more reading [hrw.org] on the subject.
It is also blatantly dishonest squirming to reach a conclusion that is palletable to the US establishment
So you dispute the conclusion of the article that you linked to support your case? I'm confused......
Given that the USA supported Saddam's invasion of Iran, resulting in about 1 million dead
Perhaps we would have chosen a different side or just remained neutral if the Iranians had acted like a civilized country and not stormed our embassy and held our diplomatic personnel hostage? I question whether or not it was sound policy to support Saddam in the 80s but don't just tell half of the story to support your arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Palestinian population within the country's borders doesn't exist?
What about Arabs that are also Israelis? Get elected to 'parliament', and get suspended from parliament for voting the wrong way during a crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you remember the statements of your own politicians who even dont let to play cricket
As opposed to carrying out a systematic genocide of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh:
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/ [genocidebangladesh.org]
Denying it, and then relentlessly persecuting minorities on racial and religious grounds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race#Modern_usage [wikipedia.org]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6367773.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1624223.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1624617.stm [bbc.co.uk]
pot, meet kettle doesn't even cover this disparity.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the more complicated the 'real' reason, the more it is open to propaganda misinterpretation. For instance, what were the real objectives of the 9/11 hijackers? whatever it was, they were swamped out by the utterly simple (and utterly wrong) diversion they 'hated america for its freedom'. The same seems to be the case here. The too simple "Israel should be wiped off the map' resonated much more with the (dumb?) public/journalists then the 'real' statement that the regime in Israel should
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so he's just a holocaust denier instead? Well, let's start shipping him some uranium! What could possibly go wrong?
I should have known better than to use a US news outlet to make my point. FWIW, I've only read about him expressing a brief skepticism toward the holocaust, and later on acknowledging that the holocaust was real on a number of occasions.
That said, I don't like Ahmadinejad or many of his policies. But the false hysteria being drummed up to justify war is even worse.
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, what?
India has had nuclear weaponry since the 1960's (or '70s?). Iran probably doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and North Korea may or may not have one.
Besides, when given a choice between a relatively peaceful nation that already has nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them), and arguably hostile regimes who are trying to lay hands on one?
In short - you must be joking, man.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Nukes pointed at country X....check.
Country X has nukes pointer at them...check.
Constantly fighting over country Y....check.
Funny...the US seems to fit that bill for being "hostile" pretty well too. Let's not forget that India is a large, stable, secular democracy with a decent non-proliferation record in spite of not having signed the NPT, has a strong economic interest in remaining peaceful and friendly with China and the U.S., and is consenting to international oversight of nuclear facilities as part of this deal.
Since India has the toys and is much more stable than Pakistan,NK and Iran, it's better that they place nice than if they don't. This is the safest, most practical and pragmatic way of ensuring that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secular? No country with a caste system is secular.
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Secular? No country with a caste system is secular.
You still haven't broken the analogy. Back during the cold war we had a caste system as well, remember? It was based on the color of your skin.
By the same token, India is fighting their own caste system. Arguably it's a lot like our fight against discrimination; you run into problems that even with official government mandates that the people in the government positions to enforce that mandate are for the discrimination, so frequently ignore said mandates. Just like in our case, it's going to take generations, and it doesn't help that their caste system has been around longer than our country.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.dalitchristians.com/ [dalitchristians.com]
The Constitution of India forbids discrimination on the basis of caste and provides many measures for affirmative action for the upliftment of people who have been oppressed for centuries. I simply don't understand how caste -> ! secular. What does secularism have to do with nukes anyway ?
The British monarch, who is also the head of state, has to be a membe
Re: (Score:2)
Taking up again the tradition of the Friesian School, this is a non-peer-reviewed electronic journal
non-peer reviewed journal. yeah right! Read some peer reviewed (or at least more mainstream) stuff here:
http://wcar.alrc.net/mainfile2.php/For+the+negative/14/ [alrc.net]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/living/caste.shtml [bbc.co.uk]
Today, caste barriers have largely broken down in the large cities. "Untouchability" has been abolished by law.
However, loyalty to a caste is much harder to eliminate and it still provides a sense of community and belonging, particularly in country areas.
Plus, India has an extensive system of affirmative actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India [wikipedia.org]
That's been in place for a while now, which is why they've had a disadvantaged for a president:
And caste system exists among non-Hindus as well in India
(Muslims:
http://www.columb [columbia.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Caste itself is a religious concept
It's a "quasi"-religious concept. Religious leaders bent on preserving their power over society claim that it is, but it isn't. Normative scripture does not mandate casteism as a static system of stratification. Casteism mandates are as much true for the Muslim Imams with their "biradaris" and "Ashraf/Ajlaf" divide as it is for the Brahmanical clergy (more so actually, since the Muslim Imams get away with it without getting lynched by irate mobs, particularly the Dawoodi Bohra Dai Syednas in western India).
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, the casteism isn't state policy in India. It's a social malaise. You could just as easily say that the US isn;t a secular country because of discrimination against non-Christian minorities (and you would be wrong).
You're right of course (Score:2)
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is in shambles due to American hypocrisy. We're basically telling countries that if you develop nukes (like India) we'll invite you into the club and reward you with more technology. Also countries like Iran will see that if you don't develop nukes you'll be invaded (like Iraq) and if you do you'll be given free oil and other subsidies (like N. Korea).
I know you right winger's won't like to hear this but it is due to: Bush's incompetence/lack of principles. When will
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't forgot the UK, France, and others. Who says the US don't practice multilateralism?
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>India is doing better as far as democracy then some of the other "BIG" countries that have recently invaded a smaller one.
So? The only country to use nuclear weapons in a war is a democracy. Ever hear of WWII? The idea that democracy means pacifist anti-nuke is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were refering to this hypocracy:
As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty [wikipedia.org]
Not the same thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Since when do US Citizens matter in US nuclear policy? The entire US nuclear program was built by Germans, Britishers, Italians and what not. This is about business . The US has nuclear companies who cant sell in the US market so they need new markets and the Indian market is a big market. Also its kind of sweet justice as the entire NSG was setup to prevent India from having cheap nuclear power(India already had bombs when the NSG was setup. It was efficient power reactors which the embargo was all about).
"As soon as"? (Score:2)
It took since 1974!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran is not a democracy since its federal government can disqualify any candidate for any reason and often does.
It is a fascist theocracy that is actively exporting its ideology. It is the worst kind of government to have a nuclear weapon.
I am not convinced that tehy are that much .... (Score:2)
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only hypocritical if you consider all governments to be equally responsible and trustworthy on the international stage.
Which is nonsense, not all countries are created equal. Iran's government was created by a violent theocratic revolution and continues to be that to this day. North Korea was created in a violent Stalinist revolution and continues to be that to this day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
its not the revolution, its what's established (Score:4, Insightful)
in u.s. and france, democratic pluralist regimes were established, based on human rights concepts outlined and developed by 18th century enlightenment. (btw, you are still basing your entire society on these even today).
India already has nukes (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The rich people don't matter. It's the number of people who can't eat enough or be warm enough that matter. And I can assure you that countries with bad economies usually have a lot of poverty. So, actually so, sorry.
China's been getting richer faster than any country for last several years. And their poverty rate has been shooting down. The disparity didn't matter.
Equal communities are usually equally POOR. It's equal opportunity combined with unequal rewards that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case are you saying that a developing nation should *not* strive for a better economy? Or simply that a better economy won't reduce poverty? And if so, what will?
No,simply stating that by itself, money does not reduce the plight of the poor, they just don't have access to it. You simply end up with a fabulously rich overclass who own all of the assets and take the benefit of the monetary inflation, and a grindingly poor underclass who earn relatively less and less. Take Brazil as an example... ~10th largest economy in the world, millions still living in favellas.
Knowledge is power. What makes the difference is education.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the nuclear fuel comes from Canada and Australia and its not like the US is using it anyway. The US hasnt built a new nuke plant in 30 years. The deal helps the American Nuclear industry to keep alive its skills by constructing plants in India till the mood in the US changes to building nuke plants again (its a matter of time the oil is running out you know). Also India has loads of Thorium but to change Thorium to U233 you need U235 to begin with and advanced reprocessing technologies which only yh
Dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
India is already capable of building nuclear weapons, and are (theoretically) more than able to sell that tech to the highest bidders if they desired (I honestly don't see them doing so - just saying they can).
I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about Iran (which has arguably sponsored terrorism) than India (which has been nothing but friendly towards anyone who isn't Pakistan, and the latter for obvious reasons). While yes things may change, I just don't see India as being the type to sell nuclear anything, to anyone, in the foreseeable future.
Iran OTOH? Well, what are the non-proliferation folks doing about that? Not much, from the looks of it. If they want to concentrate their efforts in any particular direction, I'd have them staring a bit more to the west of India...
Re:Dunno... (Score:4, Insightful)
I totally agree .. people who put India in the same category as those Islamic fanatic nations just because some of its citizens wear turbans and keep beard are completely ignorant. India is a multicultural multireligious pluraristic socieity. Also India is constitutinally SECULAR. Yes sometimes there are sporadic incidents of intolerance and violence but what else can you expect when the country has just been independent for 60 years, have been robbed by its colonial masters for centuries and still is a fully functioning democracy with the second largest population in the world? You cannot compare what India has contrbuted towards peace in earth (hint: a half naked guy who shook the british empire and who has been inspiration for many others) with what Pakistan had to offer. India needs the nuclear fuel to produce cheap energy.. its too hot out there and they all need the air conditioning just like you do.
Re: (Score:2)
>I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about Iran (which has arguably sponsored terrorism)
If that's the standard, then, to keep from being hypocrites, the UNited States should immediately quit providing nuclear weapons technology to *itself*.
Every home should have a nuke (or two) (Score:2)
Excellent !
If one country has nukes, all countries should have nukes. Hell every home should have it's own nuke (or two) After all they're supposed to be deterrents aren't they ?
After all if only one chimp has a big stick he can make the rules, and he's probably an idiot, so we don't want that.
Mutually Assured Destruction was the "in phrase" I think :)
Re: (Score:2)
India already has nuclear weapons, and has had them for decades.
I wonder what their catalog looks like... (Score:5, Funny)
I'll bet it looks like the Johnson Smith catalog.
Fissionable Uranium - part no. #34-88091 - Whether its to power a city or to level a city, you'll be the envy of your friends with your very own pile of fissionable uranium. Comes in high-quality display case with certificate of authenticity. Color our choice please. No gift wrapping available for this item. Monogramming available for $10
$79,999,999.99
Wrong associations (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
funny - I was reading the exact same thing :D
Another nail in NPTs coffin (Score:4, Interesting)
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is built on three pillars; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Only the third has had any real success; proliferation continues, with Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea having gained nukes and South Africa, Libya and Iran having got most of the way. Existing nuclear powers have yet to disarm in any significant way, with the Brits making the most progress (fewest nukes out of any of the official powers) and we've still voted to renew our "deterrent".
The only thing remaining in the NPT for non-nuclear nations is some help on power generation. I can't see it lasting long; we may see countries withdrawing en masse in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Over half those countries are in NATO and are hence covered by the nuclear umbrella of the US/Britain/France. Aside from that, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea are all obvious candidates for countries which could develop nukes but have little motive for actually doing so, due to third party protection. That leaves about 15 (at a generous guess) nations which have the capacity to develop nukes but have chosen not to. At a guess the majority of those will be in South America, where there rem
End embargoes only when it's good for US business (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*bzzzt* - Russia was admitted to the original Non-Prof club during the Cold War by treaty, when they had a nuclear weapons fleet that matched the US'. When the Cold War ended, they had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads (up to many multiple megatons for some of 'em) and a damaged economic infrastructure (at the time) that lent itself all too easily towards selling a few of the warheads on the down-low.
We basically got very nice with Russia to prevent some jackass from buying/stealing a nuke or two and th
I have an idea .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
India and Pakistan have that, they both have nukes, and yet for some reason they prefer to talk now instead of fight.
Not a bad idea in some instances after all...
Histrory Repeating Itself, Again, and Again, ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not just about proliferation (Score:5, Informative)
People in the US especially seem to think of India in terms of snake charmers and cheap IT, forgetting that we are the second largest nation on earth, with genuine security concerns.
With China sitting to our east and making noises (usually, very loud noises) and a particularly unstable Pakistan to the west who got most of their nuclear tech from China, we really don't have a choice.
Besides which, far too many other pieces of tech cannot be sold to India because they may kinda sorta have some possible application in one corner of the fine art of nuclear weapons manufacture. This can finally stop now.
Finally, the whole deal means that we can now start having safety equipment for our nuclear program, which we haven't been able to obtain for years now.
Anyway, you probably don't know the amount of flak the government has taken over this deal... There's talk from lots of sides about "selling our sovereignty", because there will now be periodic inspections of all nuclear facilities by the IAEA.
Anyway, Arbitrarily restricting possession of nuclear weapons to those nations that tested before 1967 is not exactly a solid foundation for the NPT. It should have been quite blindingly obvious right back then that several nations, even reasonably stable ones, would have severe reservations about such an imbalanced treaty.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
India has never had a first strike policy You are Pakistani right?
Get real (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look the Indian conventional army is much bigger and better equipped than the Pakistani one so India would never use a nuclear first strike against Pakistan. The Chinese military is stronger than India's but most of it is focussed against Japan and Taiwan. The forces facing against India in Tibet (India has a border with Tibet not China) are again inferior to the Indian forces on the eastern front. So India is in no danger of being overrun. The Nukes ensure that China or Pakistan wont be tempted to do a fir
Re: (Score:2)
A first strike policy
Re: (Score:2)
I got it backwards though, it was Pakistan that didn't sign the no first use policy back when, owing to the larger Indian military, I guess Pakistan felt the ability to launch first was it's trump card. I'll have to look up Pakistan's current First use policy. It would make sense for them to not sign though, like how the US reserved the right
Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, it's a position of protest. Nobody here likes the US or China or Russia saying that nobody else can have nukes, while they sit on earth-shattering (literally) quantities of the stuff. India has essentially followed the main ideas of non-proliferation (apart from two incidents) though - for example, there's a unilateral moratorium on testing.
On the other hand, we could have signed it and then developed nukes anyway, but India doesn't work that way
Re:Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:5, Informative)
Because the NPT is a biased treaty of HAVES and HAVE NOTS. It basically says that the countries that HAVE nuclear weapons can continue to have them forever and those that don't can never have them forever, thereby creating a hierarchy of powers. India rejects this as highly discriminatory and wants a world where all nuclear weapons are eliminated. Since that sounds impossible, India went ahead with its nuclear program to defend against its neighbours like China and Pakistan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They claim ethical reasons. Basically China had nukes and a sometime-hostile attitude to India, so India decided to develop its own nukes. If India had them, Pakistan had to, so they refused to sign the treaty. Israel also refused to sign as part of its on-going policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nukes.
Some facts (I think) about nuclear India. (Score:2, Informative)
India's nuclear sales spokesperson (Score:2)
BOOOOOM!!!
Please come again!
Good News (Score:2)
Many of the local shops near me have "No Nukes" signs in their windows. Many have been out of stock for months, or years. There's no telling when they will get new shipments of nukes.
I hope India opens an outlet in my neighborhood.
Re:Sweet! I'll take 5 (Score:5, Funny)
we are having nuclears for the cheapest prices
please telling us number of many you like
warm regards,
Praktah Andgambl
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, that was funny !
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The summary makes it sound like you can't buy nukes until you joing the NSG. How much is it to join the NSG? That depends, how many hookers can you hire for the UN security council?
India does not need to buy anything (Score:5, Interesting)
India has one of the largest resources for thorium. Thorium can be used in an alternative nuclear cycle that is much less wastefull and produces far less highly radioactive waste (not actinides). These reactors would probably not need solid fuel assemblies, like they are used in the west. What is for sale in the west is a technology that produces much more waste, has a risk of being turned into bombs (you can't with thorium) and keeps you dependent on delivery of very expensive fuel assemblies (that is how the nuclear companies make their money).
That last part is probably the intention: keep India (and all other buyers) dependent on a supply that you can take away again. It would be much better if India would sell some thorium reactors to the west, that would save a lot of hazardous waste.
Re:India does not need to buy anything (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Thorium is that it's a decade or two away from commercial use. India needs power NOW. And oh, they aren't mothballing their Thorium programme -- if anything progress has been good [nextbigfuture.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thorium reactor described in the article you linked to does use plutonium to overcome a problem with pure thorium reactors. Thorium gets mutated to proactinum that decays later to Uranium-233, the uranium is fissle, but the proactinum not and will smother the chain-reaction. Using plutonium gives enough oompf to keep the reaction running until the proactinum has decayed enough. But plutonium also means you will have a lot of long-halflife actinides in your waste, which is not so good.
But you are right t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose it depends on the type of "nuclear". Suppose we required all the Big Oil companies to invest in Nuclear Fusion?
Very doubtful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny! Considering that India was offered a seat in the security council but the then Prime Minter Nehru declined and suggest that the offer should go to China!