What's new

India's Nuclear Agreement

India knew this all along.

This is just a ploy to pressure the US into conceding a little more than what was originally decided.

yeh i also think so and secondly if US stops supply after India conduct a nuke test it wont affect her much
 
.
India, Pakistan and Israel - 3 nations which haven't signed.

36a31766233417047cb9b08d11ad1b94.png
 
.
India has fallen into the NPT trap: BJP

Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, September 06, 2008
First Published: 21:45 IST(6/9/2008)
Last Updated: 21:47 IST(6/9/2008)

Print



Reacting to the NSG waiver, BJP on Saturday alleged that the country has fallen into the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) "trap" and there were many hidden deals behind the move.

"BJP believes that India has fallen into the NPT trap. India has forever lost the right to conduct nuclear tests," BJP vice-president Yashwant Sinha told reporters.

Sinha accused the government of compromising on India's interests to get the deal through. "The NSG waiver has come after so many deliberations... Obviously there have been give aways by India," he said, adding NSG had laid down guidelines which were as stiff as the Hyde Act of the US.

Taking a dig at the Congress' stand that this was a historic day, Sinha said, "far from being a historic day, it is a historic shame for India."

"Congress says apartheid in the nuclear field has come to an end. But this apartheid came after the 1974 nuclear test. So is the Congress now discarding the legacy of Indira Gandhi?" he asked.

Sinha, who along with BJP MP Arun Shourie, spearheaded the BJP campaign against the government on the nuclear deal, said the US wanted this deal as it saw India as a lucrative market for nuclear fuel supply.

He said the electricity to be provided by this nuclear power will be very expensive and be available only after decades.

Sinha alleged that there were "many, many hidden deals" behind the NSG waiver.

Sinha, who was foreign minister during the NDA regime, said India could not discount the need for further nuclear tests.

"There is a very strong scientific opinion that you need to upgrade technology. Else we will be frozen in that stage of technology," he said.

The Indo-US nuclear deal also does not specify whether there would be uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply to Indian reactors. "Will the US ensure lifetime fuel supply to a reactor as was being discussed. Each reactor has a lifetime of 40 years," Sinha said.

The saffron party leader said considering the number of compromises made by India to get this deal, it would have been better had India signed the NPT directly.

"The deal leaves a whole lot of undecided issues. We are not getting dual use technology or enrichment and reprocessing technology. But still we are giving up our right to test. Had we signed NPT and CTBT it would have been less onerous," he said.

He said the government had promised in Parliament that India will get "clean and unconditional" waiver but later "unconditional was dropped unconditionally".

Since India had gone for this deal, it had frittered away any chance of a legislation here to counter the Hyde Act. "Doing so now would not be acting in good faith as India has already agreed to the deal," he said.

"India has deliberately raised the stakes against testing. It is like inviting the death sentence on India," he said.

India has fallen into the NPT trap: BJP- Hindustan Times
 
.
Good for India, stinks for Pakistan and all the NPT supporters. Oh well another day in the imperfect world of Dubbiya :lol:

India has a much better non-proliferation record than most NPT signatories.

Its the action that counts :)
 
. .
Its interests that count.

Morality and even legality on the world stage are only applicable so long as they don't conflict with interests.

If non-polluting electricity is in the interest of a billion people, then sure, its interests that count.
 
.
If non-polluting electricity is in the interest of a billion people, then sure, its interests that count.

Non-polluting electricity? part of teh equation for India perhaps.

Major reason --- China, and whatever else unfolds in the days to come.
 
.
Non-polluting electricity? part of teh equation for India perhaps.

Major reason --- China, and whatever else unfolds in the days to come.

You're wrong there...which is why I need to emphasize this:

India's clinching reason for the nuclear deal is because it plans to massively expand nuclear power generation in the coming years.

Of course, India doesn't want to sacrifice its nuclear weapon technology in the bargain, which is what all the fuss is about.

If China was really concerned about the deal, why would they support it?
 
.
You're wrong there...which is why I need to emphasize this:

India's clinching reason for the nuclear deal is because it plans to massively expand nuclear power generation in the coming years.

Of course, India doesn't want to sacrifice its nuclear weapon technology in the bargain, which is what all the fuss is about.

If China was really concerned about the deal, why would they support it?

I don't think China wants to be directly adversarial with India, and I think that China realizes that India will not go to war for the US with China.

I also do not think that the US expects India to go to war with China for its sake.

The key here is 'deterrence' - India's economic and technological prowess is going to be bolstered by this deal (even if you buy the argument that this will not allow India to increase its nuclear stockpile), and the inherent tensions (for now) in the Sino-Indian relationship will keep China somewhat preoccupied with contingencies for India. There is value for the US in having a counterweight to China in the region, even if the counterweight will not do its bidding.

On China's part, India is not the major threat, so why make it one by acting against it?
 
. .
I don't think China wants to be directly adversarial with India, and I think that China realizes that India will not go to war for the US with China.

I also do not think that the US expects India to go to war with China for its sake.

The key here is 'deterrence' - India's economic and technological prowess is going to be bolstered by this deal (even if you buy the argument that this will not allow India to increase its nuclear stockpile), and the inherent tensions (for now) in the Sino-Indian relationship will keep China somewhat preoccupied with contingencies for India. There is value for the US in having a counterweight to China in the region, even if the counterweight will not do its bidding.

On China's part, India is not the major threat, so why make it one by acting against it?

Undoubtedly, the US has its own reasons for pushing through the deal - the political establishment in the US has decided to pursue a long term relationship with India - on equal terms.

However, that's not why India signed the deal. India signed the deal for one main reason - to build nuclear power plants.

China could have easily blocked the deal, like New Zealand, Sweden and some other countries were doing. I don't buy your argument that China didn't want to spoil relations with India.
 
.
However, that's not why India signed the deal. India signed the deal for one main reason - to build nuclear power plants.
And the associated reprocessing technology and possible increase in its WMD stockpiles.

China could have easily blocked the deal, like New Zealand, Sweden and some other countries were doing. I don't buy your argument that China didn't want to spoil relations with India.
It could have, but Sino-Indian relations have thawed tremendously, and China's main threat remains to its East, and its main area of concern is Taiwan.

China may not fall in love with India, but it will not go out of its way to make an enemy of it, and essentially agreeing to a deal that carries tremendous benefits for India also sends a strong message. In terms of actual military capability, the deal does little to change the Sino-Indian equation - so again, this allows China to continue to reduce the tensions regionally so as to focus better on her main threat (US, or so she hopes).
 
.
And the associated reprocessing technology and possible increase in its WMD stockpiles.

Perhaps, perhaps not. India has agreed to IAEA inspections and the lot, though I'm not sure how far they will go.

But I must emphasize, and India did emphasize, that the deal is for nuclear power, not for building bombs.

If we wanted to build bombs, we could have done it in a far less attention-attracting way.

It could have, but Sino-Indian relations have thawed tremendously, and China's main threat remains to its East, and its main area of concern is Taiwan.

China may not fall in love with India, but it will not go out of its way to make an enemy of it, and essentially agreeing to a deal that carries tremendous benefits for India also sends a strong message. In terms of actual military capability, the deal does little to change the Sino-Indian equation - so again, this allows China to continue to reduce the tensions regionally so as to focus better on her main threat (US, or so she hopes).

Well, you had argued that "China" was one of the main reasons for India signing the nuclear deal, so you seem to have changed your position.

Also, wouldn't China support its ally Pakistan on foreign policy issues?
 
.
And the associated reprocessing technology and possible increase in its WMD stockpiles.

Totally incorrect.

I strongly suggest that you read the 123 agreement.

[Sorry I am not allowed to post URL's - google is quick]

In brief, the military facilities will be seperated from the civilian facilities, and the civilian facilities can be monitored by International agencies. There will be no business between civil and military facilities.

Our military program will not be changed, we will continue to make whatever stockpiles are required, to make it impossible for china to bear the effect, if ever it decides to use nuclear weapons against India.

We will continue to research/develop/make more powerful weapons to match or exceed those of china's.

Our No-First-Use policy stands.

Though china did not voice its concern openly, it was working behind the scenes with over 30 NSG members to sabotage the deal. [No I am not saying this, a diplomat who was engaged in NSG negotiations said it live in NDTV].

This is a great diplomatic/political defeat for China.

The world has recognized India as a nuclear power.
 
.
Perhaps, perhaps not. India has agreed to IAEA inspections and the lot, though I'm not sure how far they will go.

But I must emphasize, and India did emphasize, that the deal is for nuclear power, not for building bombs.

If we wanted to build bombs, we could have done it in a far less attention-attracting way.
But you aren't attracting attention - all the equipment and fuel imported are for 'peaceful purposes' - thats all that is being governed and monitored.

If imports allow for greater utilization of domestic resources elsewhere, well, who knows...
Well, you had argued that "China" was one of the main reasons for India signing the nuclear deal, so you seem to have changed your position.

Also, wouldn't China support its ally Pakistan on foreign policy issues?
No, I had argued that China was a major reason for the US pushing the deal. But, in terms of India's regional threat matrix, a larger WMD stockpile and greater economic growth does strengthen its position vis a vis China, and increase the deterrence level. However, India will advance on both those fronts anyway, if not as quickly, so it makes more sense to decrease tension regionally for China.

Pakistan is an ally only so long as Chinese interests dictate so - and since there is not going to be 'love' in Sino-Indian relations anytime soon, perhaps China will continue to support Pakistan in some ways as its own 'counterweight' - not in the sense that Pakistan will equal India's economic or military size, but in that India will have to continue to cater for contingencies on its Western Front, and therefore not get too adventurous on its Eastern front.

A whole gamut of complex, interweaving strategies I would say.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom