What's new

U.S.-India Deal Said to 'Increase Nuclear Danger'

What exactly will muslims do or for that matter pakistan has done( since she already posses nuclear)? please shed some light on that. Iran is openly talking about bombing isreal and what about the constant threat that iran has from US and isreal who even threatens to strike with a tactical nuclear if they have to without consluting the lives of innocent muslims tht will be at stake, but then again who cares muslims are like cattles what happens if some of them get killed..

This is exactly the 'victim card' thats been played my muslims day in and day out. Oh the necons, the jews, the hindus are all here to exterminate the Muslims. BULLSHIT. Muslims are been targeted onl;y because they are anything that stands for freedom. They want the women to be behind doors, hid under a black viel, they dont like music, no movies, what the hell? Let them go to hell.

Pakistan is always been seen as unstable and prone to fundamentalism but never happened but then again who cares coz after all pakistan is again a muslim country.

Pakistan was ruled and ruined by Muslims. It was ruled by both autocrats and leaders elected by muslims. Dont blame others for your mess.
 
.
When did iranin leaders talked about global jihad, if i missed out something let me know. The only thing they said was to wipe out isreal and that was after reports were coming about a pre-empt strike on iranin nuclear assests. What response did 1 espected from iran? should they had welcomed it.

Oh puhleeze...I never heard of pre-emptive strikes from Israel.
Go listen to any speech from Ahmadinejaad. All he talks about is global domination of Islam.
He's built a special highway in Tehran for the 12th Imam, incase you haven' heard.


Is it iran or u saying it?

Iran. Quite unequivocally. Ever heard of Khomeini? Heard of ahmadinejad?




If u read the isreal strategy, it cleary stated that in an event like this iran wouldnt keep quiet and would retliate and inorder to stop it we will threat them with nuclear, not to forget isreal in the past threaten iraq with nuclear. SOme dirty stuff you say everyday killing of innocent palestine is for you some dirty stuff and then when a palestian gets out kills an isreali, its called terrorism. wow

Yeah. What israel is doing is not terrorism. They are using their army.
Suicide bombing is terrorism.
You might call it illegal occupation, but not terrorism.

P.S. Palestinians are not innocent. Neither are the surrounding arab countries who did nothing to help Palestinians. Noone is innocent. However, Iran is very dangerous.


And then again as i mentioned earlier who are u ppl to judge the govenment in a particular country, the same can be said about US, Isreal to whom accept war there doesnt seem to be another option lets not forget abt wht isreal did to lebonan and and currently doing to palestine.

All I'm saying is that don't put your faith in Iran and Saudi style regimes. They are only held up by oil money and have no intrinsic merit.
As I said, Israel is no saint. They should withdraw from Palestine of course, but I guess the issue is too complicated to resolve successfully in the near future.
 
.
Well many like me wont buy this argument that one rogue indivdual can take a C130 to NK without official knowledge. He is been made a pawn. It could only have done with the knowledge of GOP but very well understanding the delicacy of the matter GOP might have asked AQK to go ahead bypassing some usual formalities. Its been noted by many that the nodong missiles ( design and dev) was the payment recd by pakistan in return to the 'services' offered to NK.

You are oversimplifying the issue. While the establishment may have known about the flights, it is not necessary that they knew about what exactly was being transported. AQ Khan, by virtue of his status and his reputation as "the father of the Pakistani Bomb", and his "network" with respect to finding/smuggling technology for Pakistan, unfortunately had the authority to undertake these sorts of activities without a lot of accountability. That lack of accountability for one individual would be the "mismanagement" that occurred in Pakistan's nuclear program.

As far as the Nodong/Ghauri is concerned, KRL's missile project has remained the inferior one (liquid fueled) compared to the Shaheen series of missiles by NESCOM/PAEC, which came out soon after the "Ghauri". As I mentioned before, the fact that the nuclear tests were also conducted by the PAEC, indicates that Khans nuclear program was also inferior. Based on that it does not make sense that the Pakistani Government/establishment would take an enormous chance with the export of nuclear weapons technology in exchange for an inferior missile system to one being developed locally (with or without Chinese assistance).

It seems more likely that Khan, under pressure to produce results, since PAEC/NESCOM were moving far ahead, or for his personal gain/motivations, decided to go this route to prop himself up.
 
.
Er..the US threat to Iran is because of Iran's fascist fundamentalist policies and leaders, dreams of global jihad, open support to terrorists and open hostility towards Israel. NOT the other way around.

Lets get real. Giving nukes to Iran will spell doom. Remember...Iran is headed by a fundamentalist nutjob who believes that the 12th Imam will bring the end of the world and a global caliphate.

Israel isn't threatening to go nuclear on Iran. Of course, if Iran nukes Israel, then Israel will respond....(Not that Israel is an angel of course....they have been doing some dirty stuff in Palestine..but they haven't threatened to blow up the world so far)

Pakistan of course is moderate, since its culturally much more open than middle east....

Another thing....Iran and Saudi have accomplished nothing. They just happened to have a fuckload of oil at the right time. Because of this imbalance, they are running an outdated medieval governing system in the modern world and still managing to get rich. Without oil, these countries would have been no better than any other African or South Asian country.

lol, Iran isn't going to nuke anyone. Ahmedijinad can be reigned in by the mullahs easily, he is not all powerful or anything remotely resembling a dictator. He says these things about Israel for public consumption, ie internal politics.
 
.
C'mon gentlemen get back to the technalities without this lame talking, The deal text is out and it truly seems like we got a sober deal, I'll have to study and read what other persons are studying on this a bit though, seems like the mallu menons with the 600 pound gorrila Dr Kakodkar as described by US NP guys, has pulled off a magnificient deal ;)
 
.
Oh puhleeze...I never heard of pre-emptive strikes from Israel.
Go listen to any speech from Ahmadinejaad. All he talks about is global domination of Islam.
He's built a special highway in Tehran for the 12th Imam, incase you haven' heard.

If u havent read then go and find it out before poinitng your fingers on others, Do a little google search. It has been said on more then number of times by isreal to strike even if she has to do it herself alone.
And we are not putting our faith in hands of saudis and iran. And we dont need some1 to telll us about are faiths. Muslims have the same rite of living and co-existing with others as other nations have and if west will deprive us from out existence then there will be reteliation and that can be in anyform (already seeing it in iraq and afghistan)
ANd go place your imam theory somewere else.
 
.
If u havent read then go and find it out before poinitng your fingers on others, Do a little google search. It has been said on more then number of times by isreal to strike even if she has to do it herself alone.
And we are not putting our faith in hands of saudis and iran. And we dont need some1 to telll us about are faiths. Muslims have the same rite of living and co-existing with others as other nations have and if west will deprive us from out existence then there will be reteliation and that can be in anyform (already seeing it in iraq and afghistan)
ANd go place your imam theory somewere else.

12th Imam: http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2006/1099/print/
Another link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml
..and another... http://www.alternet.org/audits/57273/

Enjoy!!:cheers:
 
.
Seventeen myths about the Indian nuclear deal:
An analysis of nuclear cooperation with India


by Kelly Motz and Gary Milhollin
June 13, 2006



In 1974, when India conducted its first nuclear weapon test, no country was more surprised than the United States. The only nuclear explosive material India had on hand was plutonium, and the plutonium had been made in a Canadian-supplied reactor that India was running with sensitive “heavy water” imported from the United States. India had promised explicitly to restrict both the reactor and the heavy water to peaceful use. It was obvious, however, that India was running a secret bomb program under the guise of peaceful energy cooperation.

The United States reacted by passing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. It prohibited the sale of American reactors, or reactor fuel, or heavy water, or similar items to countries like India that rejected the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and refused to put all of their nuclear material under international inspection. The law embodied a policy of providing the strongest possible support to the treaty.

President George W. Bush has now asked Congress to reverse this policy, so that nuclear trade with India can recommence. If Congress agrees, it will have to change the law in order to exempt India from the criteria laid down in the 1978 act. The president will also have to persuade the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a consortium of countries that have banded together to restrict nuclear exports, to make an exception for India because India does not meet the Group’s export criteria either.

The president has taken this action after making a deal with India in July 2005. Under the deal, the United States would effectively endorse India’s nuclear weapon effort in exchange for benefits that have proved rather difficult to define. When the deal is examined, it is hard to see a real prize for the United States. Yet, the supporters of the deal have repeatedly put forth claims that greatly exaggerate the supposed benefits. The claims have been repeated so often as to take on the aura of myths. Virtually absent, however, has been any discussion of the attendant risks of reopening this trade. This report tries to give a more balanced view. For each of the administration’s claims, Congress is told the risks. The objective is to enable Congress to see more clearly what is at stake.


Myth #1: The deal will bring India into the "nonproliferation mainstream" and help stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Fact: The deal leaves India far outside the international effort to combat nuclear arms proliferation. India continues to oppose the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has pointedly refused to sign it. It has just as pointedly refused to limit its production of nuclear weapons, or to obligate itself not to test such weapons. It has also refused to stop making fissile material for such weapons. Nor has India joined Europe and the United States in condemning Iran’s enrichment of uranium. The deal does not change India's negative stance on any of these questions; instead, it legitimizes it.

Myth #2: India’s agreement to allow 14 of its 22 power reactors to be inspected is a “gain for nonproliferation.”

Fact: Inspecting these reactors will not limit India’s nuclear weapon production in any way. The other eight reactors, which will be barred from inspection, will make more plutonium for weapons than India will ever need. Thus, the offer to inspect the fourteen is merely symbolic. Among the eight reactors off limits to inspectors will be India’s fast breeder reactors, which will generate plutonium particularly suited to bomb-making. In addition, the inspections themselves will waste resources. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a limited number of inspectors and is already having trouble meeting its responsibilities. To send inspectors to India on a fool’s errand will mean that they won’t be going to places like Iran, where something may really be amiss. Unless the Agency’s budget is increased to meet the new burden in India, the inspections there will produce a net loss for the world’s non-proliferation effort.

Myth #3: India has made other new commitments that will help stop proliferation.

Fact: India made only one new promise under the deal, which is to adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol. The protocol allows for more extensive inspections, but is irrelevant to India because the purpose is to unmask hidden nuclear weapon activities. India, however, has a known nuclear weapon program, so there is nothing to unmask. India’s other promises were either already required or reflected existing Indian policy. India’s promise to improve its export control laws was already required by UN Security Council Resolution 1540; India’s promise to “work toward” a cut off of fissile material production for weapons was made long before the deal; India’s decision to voluntarily refrain from testing also preceded the agreement; so did India’s decision not to export enrichment or reprocessing technology.

Myth #4: Nuclear cooperation will make India a reliable U.S. ally.

Fact: India's sovereign interests are likely to conflict with those of the United States. India, for example, cooperates militarily with Iran and has been training Iran's navy. India is dependent on Iranian oil, and is discussing a natural gas pipeline from Iran. Although India grudgingly voted for U.N. efforts to restrain Iran’s nuclear program, Indian politicians have been careful to emphasize that India's friendship with Iran will continue. It is unrealistic to expect that India, the creator of the Non-Aligned Movement, will ever do America's bidding internationally.

Myth #5: The deal will build up India as a bulwark against China.

Fact: The notion that India might assist the United States diplomatically or militarily in some future conflict with China is unrealistic. This “counterweight” theory reminds one of the argument made by the first Bush administration in the 1980's, when it contended that the United States should export sensitive dual-use equipment to Saddam Hussein in order to build up Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. U.S. pilots were later killed in Iraq trying to bomb things that U.S. companies had provided. History shows that such predictions can be dangerously wrong. India shares a border with China, is keen to have good relations with China, and does have good relations with China. The two countries have just signed a new memorandum of understanding on military cooperation. India will not sour such relations simply from a vague desire to please the United States.

Myth #6: India’s strategic position entitles it to unique treatment.

Fact: Of the three countries that have refused to sign the NPT – India, Israel and Pakistan – India is the least important strategically to the United States. Pakistan is essential to ongoing U.S. military and political efforts in Afghanistan and to the U.S. campaign against Al Qaeda. Pakistan is also a leading power in the Muslim world, a world with which the United States needs better relations. Israel has always been a close U.S. ally, and is located in a region of critical importance to U.S. foreign policy interests. In any competition for strategic favor from the United States, India finishes a distant third.

Myth #7: It is possible to loosen export controls for India without doing the same for Iran and other countries pursuing the bomb.

Fact: Weakening export controls for India will automatically weaken them for Iran, Pakistan, and even terrorist groups who might want to buy the means to make mass destruction weapons. Export controls today depend on groups of supplier countries that have agreed among themselves not to export dangerous technologies. The principle is mutual restraint. If, however, the United States drops export controls to help its friend India, Russia will drop controls to help its friend Iran, and China will drop controls to help its friend Pakistan. That is the way international controls work. India, like Iran, has decided to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of peaceful nuclear cooperation. From this standpoint, the two countries are indistinguishable. It will be impossible to convince Russia to refrain from supplying Iran, or China from supplying Pakistan, with the same technologies that the United States wants to sell India. U.S. legitimization of India’s nuclear weapon program will also make it harder to convince Russia and China to brand Iran as an outlaw in the U.N. Security Council.

Myth #8: U.S. nuclear exports will not help India make bombs.

Fact: Such exports will help India make bombs. India now needs more uranium than it can produce. This means that India must choose between using its own uranium to make nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Allowing India to fuel its power reactors with imported uranium will free India’s domestic production for reactors that make bombs, thus increasing India’s nuclear arsenal. In addition, without being able to inspect all of India's reactors, it will be impossible to tell whether a U.S. export supposedly intended for peaceful purposes has been diverted to bomb making. Nuclear exports are inherently capable of military as well as civilian applications.

Myth #9: Peaceful space cooperation will not help India's nuclear missile program.

Fact: The administration’s plan to help India develop its space launch capability will at the same time help it build long-range strategic missiles. In fact, this is already happening. As part of the Strategic Partnership umbrella announced with India, the U.S. Commerce Department has already removed export restrictions on three subsidiaries of the Indian Space Research Organization, which are all active in Indian missile development. India, indeed, is the first country to develop a long-range nuclear missile from a civilian space launch program.

Myth #10: India has an exemplary nonproliferation record and is a reliable trading partner.

Fact: India has a long record of developing both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles under the guise of peaceful nuclear and space cooperation. India tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974 by diverting plutonium made with nuclear imports from the United States and Canada that were supplied for peaceful purposes. In the 1980's, India had a deliberate policy of defeating international controls by smuggling heavy water from the USSR, China and Norway, which allowed India to use its reactors to make plutonium for bombs. In a similar fashion, India built its largest nuclear-capable missile, the Agni, by importing from NASA the design of an American space launcher, again for ostensibly peaceful purposes. Even today, Indian missile and nuclear sites continue to import sensitive American equipment in violation of U.S. law.

Myth #11: India needs more nuclear power to assure its energy future.

Fact: Nuclear power has been virtually insignificant in India’s energy mix in the past, and will be no more important in the future. India has been generating electricity with nuclear reactors for more than 40 years. Yet, reactors supply only 2% to 3% of its electricity today. India has not built more reactors because they have not turned out to be as safe, or as clean, or – most important – as economical as originally thought. Even if India were to achieve a 50% increase in nuclear power generation (which is unlikely) such a step would only increase India’s overall electricity output by one percent at most, and would only increase India’s overall energy output by a fraction of one percent. That is not a significant increase in the energy available to India and would not decrease India’s demand for oil and gas.

Myth #12: The deal will result in more U.S. reactor sales.

Fact: It is unlikely that the United States will receive reactor orders from India. India is building a string of domestic reactors that are cheaper to construct than American imports would be, and there are easier places to buy imported reactors. Russia already has a foothold in India's reactor market, and will charge less money and attach fewer conditions than will U.S. sellers. France and Canada will also enter the competition. The chance that the United States will defeat these competitors is slim. The precedent is the U.S. experience with China in the 1980's. At the time when U.S. nuclear cooperation with China was being debated, American vendors were citing the large number of reactors that China would probably buy from the United States. After the deal was signed, China bought exactly no American reactors. Instead, the U.S. agreement increased the competition and drove down the price for the Chinese buyers. That was good for China, but did nothing for the United States. The same is likely to happen with India.

Myth #13: The deal is needed to build better relations with India.

Fact: There are better ways to improve relations with India than engaging in nuclear trade. The United States can help India generate electricity without expanding India's wasteful and inefficient nuclear infrastructure, which also makes bombs. Supporting India’s reactors only reinforces the perceived prestige of nuclear technology for developing countries, a notion that the United States is trying to discourage. The United States can also support India's space effort without boosting India’s missile work. The United States could offer to launch Indian satellites and to share satellite observation data with India analysts. The reality is that trade, military cooperation, scientific exchange and political consultation can all grow vigorously without a nuclear deal.

Myth #14: The deal is not primarily about making money; it is about creating a new U.S. strategic relationship in south Asia.

Fact: The deal is primarily about making money. The main effect of the deal will be to pardon India – to remove it as a violator of international norms. After such a change in status, there will be no impediment to U.S. arms sales. This is where the real money is, not in nuclear reactors. U.S. exporters have mentioned selling as much as $1.4 billion worth of Boeing airliners, hundreds of F-16 or F/A-18 fighter jets, as well as maritime surveillance planes, advanced radar, helicopters, missile defense and other equipment. The Russian press has even complained that the nuclear deal is a ploy to squeeze Russia out of the Indian arms market.

Myth #15: The deal is consistent with U.S. efforts to fight terrorism.

Fact: The deal undermines America’s ability to fight terrorism. By favoring India over Pakistan, the deal undercuts the Pakistani government's position at home. At best, the deal is a blow to General Musharraf’s prestige, and at worst a public humiliation. Without the aid of General Musharraf, the United States will have a much harder time accomplishing its goals in Afghanistan and succeeding in its efforts to defeat al Qaeda. There is no benefit to U.S. security coming from India under the deal that will offset these disadvantages.

Myth #16: This is a “good deal for the United States.”

Fact: India has received a giant benefit – the American seal of approval for India’s nuclear weapon program – in exchange for virtually nothing. There is not a single “trophy” in the deal – nothing the United States can credibly hang on the wall as an achievement. The deal does not improve India’s proliferation status, or limit its bomb-making potential, or make it a reliable ally, or make it a regional counterweight, or guarantee a reactor sale. For the United States there are mainly costs and few or no advantages.

Myth #17: Congress needs to act now so that the deal can move forward.

Fact: Congress need take no action until a formal agreement for nuclear cooperation has been negotiated with India, and until the International Atomic Energy Agency has agreed with India upon suitable inspection arrangements, and until the Nuclear Suppliers Group – the consortium of countries that supply nuclear technology – has decided whether to change its rules to accommodate the deal. The best, and in fact the only, way for Congress to learn the details of what India will actually do, or promise to do, under the deal is to wait until all these steps are taken. Once an agreement is made and presented for consideration, Congress can add any conditions that seem warranted. Congress has never approved an agreement for cooperation without seeing the actual agreement. There is no reason to start now.
 
.
A bad deal of mythic proportions
By Kelly MotzNovember 8, 2006




Congress is faced with some important unfinished business as it moves through its "lame duck" session. The Senate, and then conference, will soon take up a controversial deal viewed by some as a strategic alliance builder. This is but one of many myths propagated by supporters of a nuclear deal with India.

The imminent power shift is an opportunity: responsible Members must now reject a bad deal. The deal would reopen nuclear trade with India – a trade forbidden for almost thirty years due to India’s nuclear transgressions. India built atomic bombs under the guise of peaceful nuclear energy – a model Iran seems to be following today – and continues to be one of the three countries that reject the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. For these reasons, responsible nations have refused to send India nuclear exports.

Until now. The administration's deal would forgive India’s sins in exchange for a “new strategic partnership,” according to which India would be a help, not a hindrance, to the effort to stop the spread of the bomb, and is expected to favor American sellers when it buys arms.

A close look shows that the benefits of the deal are illusory, and that it will cripple U.S. policies against nuclear arms proliferation.

The administration claims that the deal will bring India into the “mainstream” of states opposed to the spread of the bomb. In fact, the deal leaves India far outside. India still opposes the Non Proliferation Treaty, refuses to stop building nuclear weapons, refuses to obligate itself not to test them, refuses to stop making fissile material to fuel them, and refuses to join Europe and America in condemning Iran’s enrichment of uranium. The deal does not change India's negative stance on these questions; it legitimizes it.

The administration also cites India’s pledge to put 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors under inspection as a “gain for nonproliferation.” But the remaining eight reactors – forever off limits to inspection – will make more bomb fuel than India will ever need. How does looking only at what India deems irrelevant to its strategic program help nonproliferation?

The administration also claims that the deal won’t help India’s bomb program, but it will. The deal allows India to begin importing uranium to fuel its civilian reactors. This will free its scarce domestic uranium to fuel reactors that make bombs, producing a sharp increase in its arsenal. India has a long record of transmuting civilian imports into weapons. It misused U.S. and Canadian imports to build its first bomb in the 1970’s, smuggled in Soviet, Chinese and Norwegian material to make more bomb fuel in the 1980’s, and built its Agni nuclear missile in part by importing American designs from NASA for a peaceful space rocket.

Nor will the deal build up India as a bulwark against China, as its supporters claim. History has been unkind to the “counterweight” theory. Look at the U.S. decision to build up Iraq as a counterweight to Iran in the 1980's. Saddam’s increase in power triggered two U.S. invasions. Then there's the Soviet Union's nuclear aid to China in the late 1950's, which complicated their 1969 border conflict and fueled decades of competition. India and China, in fact, have much-improved relations and just signed a military cooperation pact. It is naive to think that India, the creator of the Non-Aligned Movement, will routinely back Washington's agenda vis-à-vis Beijing. States act in their own interest.

The real effect of the deal will be to torpedo our effort to stop the spread of the bomb. Once the United States drops export controls on nuclear sales to India – simply on the ground that India is now our friend – Russia will drop controls on sales to its friend Iran, and China will drop controls on sales to its friend Pakistan. That is the way international export controls work – only by mutual restraint. It is illogical to hope that others won’t sell their clients the same technologies we sell India.

Then why make such a deal? For the money. By re-labeling India as “mainstream,” instead of “outlier,” impediments to U.S. arms sales will be removed. American exporters hope to sell India Boeing aircraft, hundreds of F-16 or F/A-18 fighter jets, and other high-priced military equipment. Wealthy Indians in the United States are also throwing money at Congress to elevate India’s international prestige. But is it smart to ease the spread of the bomb just to sell planes or increase another country’s status?

Congress should reject the deal. We don’t need it to build up our ties to India, and it will severely damage our effort to stop the spread of the bomb. In a time when we worry every day about terrorism, we should not be loosening international controls over dangerous nuclear materials.


Kelly Motz is Associate Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.
 
.
Myth #1: The deal will bring India into the "nonproliferation mainstream" and help stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Fact: The deal leaves India far outside the international effort to combat nuclear arms proliferation. India continues to oppose the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has pointedly refused to sign it. It has just as pointedly refused to limit its production of nuclear weapons, or to obligate itself not to test such weapons. It has also refused to stop making fissile material for such weapons. Nor has India joined Europe and the United States in condemning Iran’s enrichment of uranium. The deal does not change India's negative stance on any of these questions; instead, it legitimizes it.

India's non commitment to stop its weaponisation is India's soveirgn right. What has that got to do with non proliferation.
 
.
Myth #2: India’s agreement to allow 14 of its 22 power reactors to be inspected is a “gain for nonproliferation.”

Fact: Inspecting these reactors will not limit India’s nuclear weapon production in any way. The other eight reactors, which will be barred from inspection, will make more plutonium for weapons than India will ever need. Thus, the offer to inspect the fourteen is merely symbolic. Among the eight reactors off limits to inspectors will be India’s fast breeder reactors, which will generate plutonium particularly suited to bomb-making. In addition, the inspections themselves will waste resources. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a limited number of inspectors and is already having trouble meeting its responsibilities. To send inspectors to India on a fool’s errand will mean that they won’t be going to places like Iran, where something may really be amiss. Unless the Agency’s budget is increased to meet the new burden in India, the inspections there will produce a net loss for the world’s non-proliferation effort.

Myth #3: India has made other new commitments that will help stop proliferation.

Fact: India made only one new promise under the deal, which is to adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol. The protocol allows for more extensive inspections, but is irrelevant to India because the purpose is to unmask hidden nuclear weapon activities. India, however, has a known nuclear weapon program, so there is nothing to unmask. India’s other promises were either already required or reflected existing Indian policy. India’s promise to improve its export control laws was already required by UN Security Council Resolution 1540; India’s promise to “work toward” a cut off of fissile material production for weapons was made long before the deal; India’s decision to voluntarily refrain from testing also preceded the agreement; so did India’s decision not to export enrichment or reprocessing technology.


This guy probably doesnt know what non proliferation means!!!



Myth #4: Nuclear cooperation will make India a reliable U.S. ally.

Fact: India's sovereign interests are likely to conflict with those of the United States. India, for example, cooperates militarily with Iran and has been training Iran's navy. India is dependent on Iranian oil, and is discussing a natural gas pipeline from Iran. Although India grudgingly voted for U.N. efforts to restrain Iran’s nuclear program, Indian politicians have been careful to emphasize that India's friendship with Iran will continue. It is unrealistic to expect that India, the creator of the Non-Aligned Movement, will ever do America's bidding internationally.

So whats the point been made by the author/poster here? India's interest will conflict with that of US, yes it might. So what? India still managed top pull of the deal, good job!
 
.
So whats the point been made by the author/poster here? India's interest will conflict with that of US, yes it might. So what? India still managed top pull of the deal, good job!

Yeah. Its been done. Its a great deal with no compromises for India. Congrats to the negotiating teams on an excellent job.:cheers:
 
.
US - India Nuclear Agreement would have implications on strategic stability: NCA
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?185803

RAWALPINDI: National Command Authority noting that the US – India Nuclear Agreement would have implications on strategic stability has reiterated Pakistan’s position that the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) should evolve a criteria based approach to enable Pakistan to access civil nuclear energy under IAEA safeguards to meet its growing energy requirements.


The National Command Authority (NCA) met Thursday at its Secretariat, the Strategic Plans Division.

The meeting, chaired by President General Pervez Musharraf, was also attended by the Prime Minister, Mr. Shaukat Aziz, the Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Services Chiefs, senior scientists and other civil and military officials.

The meeting was held to review matters related to Pakistan’s Nuclear Power Programme. The meeting also deliberated upon the US – India Nuclear Agreement and on discussions in the Conference of Disarmament on a proposed treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices.

The meeting reviewed Pakistan’s objective and plans for civil nuclear power generation under IAEA safeguards which is part of the overall energy strategy to meet the requirements of economic growth in the country. This objective will be pursued on a priority basis especially in view of the increasing oil prices.

The NCA reiterated Pakistan’s position that the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) should evolve a criteria based approach to enable Pakistan to access civil nuclear energy under IAEA safeguards to meet its growing energy requirements. Pakistan had always fulfilled all its international IAEA safeguard requirements for its nuclear power reactors, and was ready to accept innovative bilateral and multilateral approaches for establishment of power plants under appropriate safeguards, including nuclear power parks.

The NCA noted that the US – India Nuclear Agreement would have implications on strategic stability as it would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from un-safeguarded nuclear reactors.

The objective of strategic stability in South Asia and the global non-proliferation regime would have been better served if the United States had considered a package approach for Pakistan and India, the two non-NPT Nuclear Weapons States, with a view to preventing a nuclear arms race in the region and promoting restraints while ensuring that the legitimate needs of both countries for civil nuclear power generation are met.

While continuing to act with responsibility in maintaining credible minimum deterrence and avoiding an arms race, Pakistan will neither be oblivious to its security requirements, nor to the needs of its economic development which demand growth in the energy sector. The NCA expressed satisfaction at the current state of Pakistan’s strategic deterrence and expressed firm resolve to meet the requirements of future credible minimum deterrence.

The NCA reviewed the current status of negotiations on disarmament issues in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, including regarding the proposed FMCT. The NCA reiterated Pakistan’s position in favour of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty, taking into account the security concerns of all states.

The NCA reiterated Pakistan’s commitment to WMD nonproliferation and expressed satisfaction at the steps taken to further strengthen Pakistan’s Export Controls including the setting up of the Strategic Export Control Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Oversight Board for Export Controls. Pakistan would continue to work with the international community and its important partners in the global efforts against WMD proliferation.
 
.
India's non commitment to stop its weaponisation is India's soveirgn right. What has that got to do with non proliferation.

Non-proliferation has a meaning outside of "exporting to others". Non-proliferation applies to issues concerning growth of existing stockpiles and an increased weaponization capability. Both are detrimental from a NPT standpoint (along with export to others).
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom