Neo

IMAGINE A WORLD with 20 or more nuclear weapons states. This was President Kennedy's dark vision in 1963. Were it to come to pass, the risk that terrorists could buy or steal nuclear bombs would rise significantly. Yet President Bush's recent proposal to provide nuclear energy assistance to India is a dangerous gamble that makes such an outcome more likely.

It could unravel the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which, though imperfect, has helped limit the number of countries able to make nuclear weapons. Congress should reject the proposal and require renegotiation to limit the Indian nuclear weapons program.

India's nuclear history reveals why the proposed deal would weaken U.S. national security.

In 1974, India exploded a secret nuclear device using plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor containing U.S. heavy water. Both the reactor and the heavy water were sold to India under agreements with a "peaceful use" requirement, which India violated.

In 1978, Congress enacted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. That required countries such as India who were not among the five nations recognized as nuclear weapons states under the nonproliferation treaty, and that wanted American nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, to submit to "safeguards," meaning inspections of all their nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. India refused, and the United States ended all nuclear assistance to the country from that day forward.

Now, Bush has put forward a proposal that caves in utterly to India. It would not only allow India to keep its bombs, it would permit it to use all its own nuclear material for bomb making, while using nuclear fuel the United States would supply for its civilian power program. If India receives this favor, can Israel and Pakistan be far behind?

Such a radical proposal should be viewed within the context of the current negotiations with Iran and North Korea, two countries that signed the nonproliferation treaty but have been caught violating safeguards. Failure to stop them from producing nuclear weapons would be a serious blow to global stability.

Iran and North Korea are being offered reactors and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies for peaceful uses in return for a permanent shutdown of facilities for enriching uranium or separating plutonium, both of which have peaceful applications but enable the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Whether either will ultimately accept is unclear.

So let's compare the deals offered India and Iran:

India: Can build as many nuclear weapons as it wishes with its own nuclear supplies. Iran: Cannot build any nuclear weapons with its own or anyone else's supplies.

India: Can build and operate un-safeguarded facilities for producing and stockpiling unlimited amounts of fissile material for its weapons program. Iran: Cannot build enrichment or plutonium separation facilities, even if safeguarded and even though the nonproliferation treaty does not prohibit such activities.

India: Is asked to maintain a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing. Iran: Cannot make or explode nuclear devices under any circumstances.

India: Must divide its nuclear facilities into "civilian" and "military," with voluntary IAEA safeguards applying only to its civilian program. Iran: Must have the most stringent safeguards on all its nuclear facilities.

This double standard favoring India is an example of America's willingness to wash away the nuclear sins of its "friends" to achieve other foreign policy goals. Pakistan is another example; it has received F-16s, which can deliver its nuclear weapons, despite having violated U.S. nonproliferation laws and spread nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea via the Abdul Qadeer Khan network.

What is the message we're sending? How will these double standards persuade the Iranians to give up their right to produce advanced nuclear materials? How could signatories of the nonproliferation treaty not conclude that it has been seriously devalued when India — which refused to sign it in the first place, broke its contracts with the United States and Canada and developed nuclear weapons — is to be given virtually unconditional nuclear assistance?



SOME NATIONS may decide that if they withdraw from the treaty, build nuclear weapons and wait long enough while avoiding antagonizing the United States, they will eventually get all the nuclear help they want.

Why then is the Bush administration risking undermining the treaty?

It is no secret that it views China as a growing strategic rival and sees India as a counterweight. It is therefore interested in helping India build up its economic and military capability. If the deal goes through, Pentagon officials reportedly expect India to purchase as much as $5 billion in U.S. conventional military equipment, some of which would be helpful in monitoring Chinese military movements and submarines.

During the 2004 presidential race, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry stated that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was the most serious threat to U.S. national security. But giving nuclear assistance to India undercuts the rationale for telling other nations not to supply suspected proliferators such as Iran.

Moreover, both China and Pakistan will be motivated to accelerate their own weapons programs and their mutual nuclear cooperation. Pakistani officials will not be more cooperative in the stalled investigation of Khan's activities. Adding the risk to the nonproliferation treaty to this poisonous mix makes the president's proposal a marked retreat from half a century of American leadership in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

__________________
Administrator @ Defence.pk

Neo

I'm curious what American members think of the deal.
Hoping for serious replies and a good debate.
Thanks!

Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Neo

I expected you to be the first to comment
Interesting that Pakistan is mentioned but I think authors major issue here is India and the double standards US is applying to please friends and to serve its own interests to support India to couterbalance China.
How does that affect the NPT?
Please feel free to post anything Sir, I'm not sensitive to the truth

Ray

Neo

I know that Sir, politics is ever selfserving.
Interesting question is if we should review NPT if the Indo-US deal get thru.
China will surely support its allies by providing nuclear technology for 'civil purposes' in same fashion as US and no one can stop them doing so.

Horrido

Non-issue, I don't personally view India as a threat. There are no serious religious or political reasons that would compel me to suspect that India would either use her nuclear arsenel other than in the most dire circumstances of self-defense, or lose control of her nuclear arsenal through political coup, theft, or sale to third parties. Pakistan, on the other hand, is a completely different issue entirely. While I have nothing against Pakistan or Pakistanis, per say, I find the prevelent religious fundementalism, political instability, and scientists willing to pass on nuclear information very alarming.

The same issue regarding the arabs sniveling over Israel having nukes: The difference is, Israel is not likely to use them on a whim, while Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran would be MORE than happy to smuggle one into Tel Aviv, New York, DC, etc. and kill several million people (I'd be willing to snuff NY and DC, if it wasn't for all the historic artifacts).

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

Jay

Like it or not, nukes with India is to stay. Either you can accept the reality and take measures and safeguards so that it will remain secure. Bush sees India as a responsible nuclear power and hence the deal!

We had this treaty for 20 odd years but still India, Pakistan, Israel managed to get the bombs. It means wither the NPT is not effective, or the signatories of NPT are violating their conditions.

US understood that with or with out its help India will keep bombmaking and there no one can stop it. As I said, its better to teach India state of the art technologies for the safe keeping of nukes and associated materials.

Well, to start with Israel has not advertised it. Pakistan first has to get its act straight, we just know about 1 AQKhan, dunno how many still are under the carpet.

Comparing India and Iran is atupid. India did not sign NPT or CTBT while Iran and NK did. So India did not violate any freakin global treaty. India can anyway build and operate its own nuclear reactors and no one can stop it. But Iran has signed them, so if it decides to build enrichement plants then it will directly violate NPT.
All the hoo haa's are for nations that are yet to acquire the tech, not for countries who already has them. Else include P-5 in the list as well.

Again its BS. China already has enuf nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, so its nothing new to them. In a way, atleast they would do it in daylight so we can asses what kinda tech tranfers happened between them.

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Equilibrium

The US and India share mutual interests:

1. They have no desire to see a resurgence of fundamentalist Islam in the region.

2. The both have a stake in the survival of the Musharraf government.

The alternatives to Musharraf are not better, and a collapse could result in a radical fundamentalist government in possesion of a nuclear arsenal. Therefore crises between Pakistan and India must be avoided, Musharraf would not survive an unfavorable result of a conflict.

3. Both countries also do not desire to seek hegemony by any Asian power on the continent.

India should not stake its security on appeals for nuclear disarmament from powers that already posses them. The subcontinent has a long history of nuclear rivalry dating from China's detonation in 1964.

India does not need our permission to become a nuclear power, it already is. The US must be pragmatic, dealing with the realities of the region, not with how we think it should be. The Asia subcontinent consists of powers with regional and global aspirations. The US must seek to channel these aspirations within a stable world order that is conducive to prosperity and peace.

Swift Sword

Sir,

Given the subject matter at hand I found your use of the term iron amusing and immediately was reminded of the following:

"This heir of Vasudeva, by name Samva, will bring forth a fierce iron bolt for the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. Ye wicked and cruel ones intocixated with pride, through that iron bolt ye will become the exterminators of your race..."

As near as I can tell, there are two lenses through which to view nuclear proliferation: that of the rationalist and that of the nationalist. Anymore, I am not sure which one will get you killed faster.

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

BenRoethig

I don't think India, Pakistan, North Korea or anyone else should have nuclear weapons. Those countries who are still developing them have no respect for them at all. That being said, when was the last time India threatened to wipe someone off the map? India at least sorta gets the concept of MAD. Iran's understanding of the matter begins and ends with 'Allah is supreme'. In short, if they have them, there isn't a whole lot stopping them from using nukes.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

Swift Sword

Hi Ben,

I am not sure that I buy that assertion.

The following quote from Rafsanjani leads me to believe that there are those in Iran who know what the score is:

"If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that
Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything.
However, it will only harm the Islamic world."

One could probably make the case that what stops Iran from making wider use of other unconventional offsets such as chemical artillery and terrorism might also be the mechanism that would stop them from being too terribly irresponsible with nuclear weapons.

I do not think that the Iranians should have nuclear weapons simply because I am opposed to proliferation in general. However, unless someone wants start a war or start on the path to some sort of rapproachment, it might do us well to get used to the idea of Iran at least having a nuclear program (which makes weapons fairly easy to get) or in outright posession of nuclear weapons.

As usual, I am going to put in another plug for NDU's McNair Paper No. 69 "Reassesing the Implications of a Nuclear Armed Iran" as it is a very readable, comprehensive, and current introduction to a very nuanced situation.

Available for free: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf

BenRoethig

99% of Iranians are good, decent, hardworking people. Unfortunately, its the other 1% (the mullahs and their lackeys) who have absolete Power in the country.

Jay

So when China exploded nukes was it all developed??

Enzo Ferrari

China exploded nukes in the expense of famine and dead of 30 millions people(Great Leap Forward)