Have a look at the link below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6155842.stm
2006-11-16 19:40:44 · 8 answers · asked by Zabanya 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The deal is tenative until India agrees to our requirements. I don't think it would have gotten the votes it did unless that was a requirement.
Overal it can be a starting point to allow us to monitor more closely the nuclear decisions made in India. You don't know what the cook is doing unless you can get into the kitchen.
If it works, security would be the best outcome. If it doesn't, we can stop providing the nuclear material.
2006-11-16 19:51:48 · answer #1 · answered by Chris S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in spite of contain destruction isn't magnificent,so i do not agreed about nuclear or any guns why not some thing that reason extra prosperity extremely of suffering?india is a u . s . with lots of undesirable human beings and the most of that as a results of conception structures,they are in civil conflict the most of the time so what are you able to anticipate about to have nuclear guns if there is not stability,about china i do appreciate them because they don't make public some thing about them,they are sensible,i will; provide you with 2 ex:a million-a undercover agent u . s . plane replaced into push to land for china(they stuck it)2-a u . s . plane provider did not bump right into a chinese submarine proper less than and to boot it,so in case you note the massive mistake is to gloat about the flexibility once you've enemies.
2016-11-25 00:04:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Once again Bush succeeds in talking out of two sides of his mouth at the same time. When it suits him, there is no such thing as Global Warming, or the threat of "Nucular" proliferation. If it is Iran, getting hold of what we are selling to India constitutes a violation of International Law and must need to be followed by economic sanctions and the threat of military air strikes. Follow the money on this and you should get the real story.
2006-11-16 20:02:58 · answer #3 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"The United States is looking forward to eating Indian mangos." -- President George W. Bush, March 2, 2006.
2006-11-17 03:46:54 · answer #4 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
PAKISTAN
Pervez Musharraf has a very tenuous hold on a country that paraded their first nuclear-weapon around the streets of Karachi with the name "Islam Bomb" written on it.
The USA helping India is about security.
Nothing but the truth.
If you want a story, go ask Seuss the Doctor
2006-11-16 23:14:03 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If India has a nuclear I think every country should have one.
2006-11-16 21:04:49 · answer #6 · answered by notProudatAll 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The USA is helping them further develop nuke technology for nuclear power plants.
India, in rural areas, has had severe power shortages. These shortages, have hurt the rural populations. It is a good idea for the USA to help them, and will better relations for our countries in the long run.
2006-11-16 22:55:04 · answer #7 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The best way of making sure the knowledge/knowhow elsewhere in the world does not surpass that in America
2006-11-16 20:18:41 · answer #8 · answered by Jomtien C 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋