[panther_black]

It's but sad that the much talked about Indo-US Nuke Deal does not find a mention in this forum.

Anyway i'll but it short and nice of what the deal means:

The Indian PM Manmohan Singh and President Bush have successfully agreed upon the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. It seen as a historic step not only from the two countries' point of view but also other countries.

Major points to see here are:

1. Unlimited nuclear supply to India.
2. Successful separation of civilian and military nuclear eactors. The civilian nuclear reactors are placed under safeguards. But the military ones are not. Also as wanted, the fast breeder reactors are not under safeguards.
3. It ends decades long nuclear isolation for India.
4. Conditions upon NPT signatories still don't apply to India.

The Future:

1. Bush must make the Congress agree to the plan.
2. Sanctions from the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG).
3. Acceptance from other nuclear powered states.
4. New Delhi has to approach the IAEA to put civilian nuclear reactors under safegaurds.
5. Stiff opposition for PM in parliament.

Bush and Manmohan termed the deal as 'historic'. In his speech, Bush said that although the PM and he would face opposition, it was a bold step in the right direction. He also said that the world must change due to shortage of fossil fuels in the future.

He also said that this would lead other countries into having there own civilian nuclear deals. He also appreciated Manmohan for his courage to make such a deal a reality....

White House release on the Deal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 308-3.html

[Sapper]

I posted an article or two about it earlier in March. I haven't seen any more media coverage other than for two-three days then.

But, in short, it is another blow to nonproliferation efforts, and essentially rewards India for their development of nuclear weapons and contravention of the norms established in the NPT. It also makes the U.S. look glaringly hypocritical (which it of course is) when speaking to Iran about the need for nonproliferation.

Here are a few stories about it I saved on my computer:

Washington Post

Carnegie Endowment

Lost Angeles Times article, no longer available on web:

Posted on Sun, Mar. 05, 2006

U.S.-India nuclear deal designed as China hedge

By PAUL RICHTER
Los Angeles Times

ANALYSIS

WASHINGTON — A key factor behind the nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and India was a simple trade-off: The White House was willing to risk losing ground in the worldwide campaign to limit the spread of nuclear weapons for a deal with India that could help it counter the rising power of China.

Despite widespread criticism that the pact sets back global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, administration officials praise the deal for its promise of better ties with a thriving democracy and reduced competition for world oil.

But administration officials also know well that an India that is more prosperous — and well-armed — represents a hedge against Chinese military ambitions. With China’s ambitions unclear, such a hedge is an important component of U.S. strategy.

Counterbalancing China “is an under-the-surface issue that only rarely pokes its head up,” said Jon Wolfsthal, a former Energy Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “But it’s very much there.”

The Bush administration has made nuclear nonproliferation one of its top priorities, and is now trying to limit nuclear ambitions of Iran. But in forging the pact with India, there is a cost.

Many experts believe the U.S.-India agreement is likely to convince non-nuclear nations that they can proceed with bomb-building programs in the face of international disapproval, and eventually win back American support anyway.

In the past, the Bush administration has stressed the importance of the U.S.-Japanese strategic relationship to ensure it has a close and capable ally on China’s southeast flank. The deal with India reflects an American desire to build an alliance on China’s southwest edge.

U.S. officials didn’t mention China this past week as they publicly detailed the new agreement. But several senior administration officials have said the U.S. must strengthen India to offset China.

Ashley J. Tellis, a senior State Department official and a key architect of the new U.S.-India strategic policy, has argued publicly that allowing India to build up its nuclear arsenal is not only in New Delhi’s interest, but also Washington’s. An Indian nuclear arsenal will cause Beijing to worry more about India, Tellis says, and less about the United States.

U.S. officials contend that neither they nor the Indians consider China an enemy, or a force that needs to be “contained,” as the United States once sought to contain the Soviet Union. Experts said it is more accurate to describe the U.S. strategy as an effort to offset one rising power by building up another — one that is considered closer in values and outlook to the United States.

“This is an effort to counterbalance the rise of China, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say to ‘contain’ China or to be antagonistic toward it,” said L. Gordon Flake, executive director of the Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs in Washington. “We obviously have an interest in a large democratic, multiethnic society as a counterbalance to the Chinese in the region.”

INSIDE

China announces sharp rise in defense spending. Page A16

[panther_black]

The Media often fuels our minds to agree with what it says which many times, and I need not give examples for it, is not the truth at all. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong...

It's only a matter of opinion based on some hard facts. I'll give you the hard facts and you decide what is reality.

-------------------------------------------------------
* The US gives unlimited nuclear supply to India, mark this, not for creating weapons but to generate energy. It is a Civilain Nuclear Deal.

* All civilian reactors are under IAEA safeguards so the fuel goes directly to the reactors and inspections can be made when required by IAEA.

* The military reactors are not under safeguards.

* The reactors remain under safeguards as long as the unlimited fuel is supplied.

* India does not sign the NPT, atleast for now although the US has clearly indicated it'll pressurize India to do it in the future. So no NPT terms stand for India.

So it must be understood clearly that the fuel being supplied is going to be used only to produce energy and not create weapons. While, yes i agree, it does not stop India from reseaching in weapon grade nuclear activities, the deal according to me is in the world's interest.

It is the key to energy in the future as,it was mentioned before, fossils fuel will be completely consumed in 30-40 years.

It serves as a example to other countries which would liek to have Civilian Nuclear Deals for themselves so as to be energy sufficient.

Besides it makes India an active ally in the war against terrorism which has in the past many decades wreaked havoc for the people of Kashmir and is now targetting the whole country...

-------------------------------------------------------

Also read the Indian PM's statement in the Parliament after the deal was clinched with US.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/nic/pmspeech.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

It also makes the U.S. look glaringly hypocritical (which it of course is) when speaking to Iran about the need for nonproliferation.

I never read any news reports by Iran stating that the deal shows US'
double standards...

[ZeusIrae]

The distinction between civilian and nuclear reactors doesn't mean anything.
You can get Plutonium from any nuclear reactor.The question is how the US is going to make sure that India doesn't use its deal to make bombs?It's a very hard thing to do,you don't need a lot to make it.This deal is risky,but I can understand why the US took the risk,nuclear proliferation is one among many issues in the region and the US hasn't lot to loose by trying new solutions.

[panther_black]

First of all, India has a clean record when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Second, all the civilian reactors are now under IAEA safeguards, so there is no question of material going to military reactos to make nukes...Inspections can be made when wanted by the IAEA....

[Sapper]

There is nothing wrong with civilian nuclear deals. However, India has a military nuclear establishment, and countries in the past have not hesitated from using materials, technology, etc. acquired for their civilian program for their military program. Additionally, this further rewards Indian proliferation., and excuses it.

[panther_black]

Yes, i agree the deal does not stop nuclear proliferation...actually does not talk about it at all...

And even though the US hopes to put India under NPT, and it has stated it'll pressurize India to, the only reason why India has not signed the treaty is because India believes that if big boss US can have nukes, so can India. NPT is a dummy deal..

No wonder Iran got frustated and then started making nukes, if it is, then I am not against it...

I am talking about the civilian part only...the one on military is a much debated topic where in the big boss makes all it wants but the others are not allowed to...

[The Antiist]

I have poor knowledge of nuclear power generators, but is it not a flaw I see here in this contract:

* The US gives unlimited nuclear supply to India, mark this, not for creating weapons but to generate energy. It is a Civilain Nuclear Deal.

* The military reactors are not under safeguards.

That LA article was pretty interesting, by the way. Props on that.

[panther_black]

No there is no flaw...

You are just getting a litlle confused...

The unlimited supply of fuel is used only for civilian purposes and not for military reactors. So even though the military reactors are not under safeguards, their source of fuel is not the fuel supplid by the US or the NSG...

For the military reactors probably India will use the uranium available in the country only......

[Sapper]

the only reason why India has not signed the treaty is because India believes that if big boss US can have nukes, so can India.

Well, that's certainly part of it. Originally, Indian development of nukes was closely related to China's development, and still is. India also looks at U.S. acceptance of Israeli nukes. Also, I believe India has said it will sign the NPT if Pakistan does, which it is so far unwilling to do.

NPT is a dummy deal..

I don't think so. It has proven to be the central legal and international foundation for all nonproliferation efforts, despite that it is not always enforced very well.

the one on military is a much debated topic where in the big boss makes all it wants but the others are not allowed to...

I agree that the U.S. should halt all development and production of nuclear weapons, implement the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty as well as the numerous other proliferation related treaties the U.S. has failed to ratify, stop supplying other countries (like Israel, Pakistan, and India) with nuclear assistance, etc. There are many steps the U.S. may take. The Carnegie Endowment put out an excellent publication , coauthored by George Perkovich and Joseph Circione among others, that had numerous excellent suggestions (pdf).

[Sapper]

Double.

[panther_black]

I believe India has said it will sign the NPT if Pakistan does, which it is so far unwilling to do.

I don't think India has said anything like that. Even if it has, it might well be to avoid pressure...India I think considers the NPT as a dummy deal...

It has proven to be the central legal and international foundation for all nonproliferation efforts, despite that it is not always enforced very well.

Rules are made not to be sealed in a book and to be passed on for generations. If they are not implemented, then it has no use...All the NPT has done to get countries first sign it and then get frustated seeing USA making nukes and then go and make nukes itself and then get invaded...India is just intelligent enough to sign it...

U.S. has failed to ratify, stop supplying other countries (like Israel, Pakistan, and India) with nuclear assistance, etc.

I dont think US has ever supplied nukes or nuclear material to build weapons...it did only for energy production that too the last supply was i guess three decades before india first tested it's nuclear weapon....

[Sapper]

I don't think India has said anything like that.

Yes, you're right. I believe it was the other way around.

If they are not implemented, then it has no use...

Not exactly. First, rules, though unenforced, establish norms which make it harder to break the rules. Second, countries can eventually be penalized for breaking the rules. Neither of these could come about without the NPT.

All the NPT has done to get countries first sign it and then get frustated seeing USA making nukes

I partially agree -- the U.S. and the other nuclear powers need to take steps to implement their share of the NPT.

I dont think US has ever supplied nukes or nuclear material to build weapons

The Reagan administration was well aware of Pakistan's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, but turned the other cheek to knock the Soviets down in Afghanistan -- even when a Pakistani plot to steal nuclear technology from the U.S. was uncovered, little was done.

[panther_black]

Yes, you're right. I believe it was the other way around.

What do you mean? If you give me some evidence, mayb i'd agree.

First, rules, though unenforced, establish norms which make it harder to break the rules. Second, countries can eventually be penalized for breaking the rules. Neither of these could come about without the NPT

xactly wat i said. e.g. iran was driven mad till it decided it had enough of sham laws and is now facing all sorts of pressure for only signing the NPT in the first place...

The Reagan administration was well aware of Pakistan's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, but turned the other cheek to knock the Soviets down in Afghanistan -- even when a Pakistani plot to steal nuclear technology from the U.S. was uncovered, little was done.

refer to my post. i am talking abt us supplyig nukes to india....