Are they finally going to sneak this by us - India, the NPT & nuclear...?

Question

Last year, Bush went to India and even though India has never signed the NPT, nuclear non-proliferation treaty, he cut a deal allowing nuclear-armed India to purchase US nuclear reactors and fuel for the 1st time in 3 decades.

Congress votes on this today

Is it not insane to allow this while at the same time, telling Iran whom signed the NPT, they can't enrich unranium for energy purposes?

Why won't India sign the NPT? Shouldn't we say 'No Deal' if they don't?

"The deal reverses 30 years of U.S. policy that, until July 2005, opposed nuclear cooperation with India because the South Asian democracy never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and developed nuclear weapons in contravention of international standards."
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-12-08T113333Z_01_N07234536_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-INDIA-USA.xml&src=rss

Doesn't this mute our argument against Iran?

Answer 1

We are interested in a nuclear India because we see it as a safeguard against China.

This, however, is a very dangerous track that has backfired time and again. After all, we originally saw the Taliban as a safeguard against Soviet expansion in Afghanistan, but arming them didn't turn out so well. And, of course, there was the U.S. arming of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, against what we saw as a potential Iranian threat. Again, not a brilliant idea.

Yet, here we are, again making the same mistake, only this time with nuclear weapons. It's no wonder nations in the region don't see us as an honest broker.

Answer 2

First on why India won't sign the NPT
It is completely biased in favor of the P5 (US, UK, France, Russia China).
Now that the P5 have tested hundreds of nukes they tell us that u don't have the right to make any nukes. The P5 out of hundreds of nuclear reactors have only 12 under IAEA safeguards. And they expect other nations to keep each and every one of their reactors under safeguards. The P5 can withdraw the remaining 12 reactors under safeguards at any time they want. No need for any kind of notice.
And they expect other nations to have safeguards in perpetuity. Except for the P5 no state can manufacture nukes. One of the main pillars of the NPT is reducing the nuke stockpile. The P5 go around preaching that others should reduce / destroy their nukes but they have not done so themselves. One of the articles state that the signatories should proceed towards complete nuke disarmament. I don't see the P5 doing any of that. On the other hand US is developing / developed weapons that cause more destruction than nukes.
On what grounds is such a distinction valid? And btw what makes u trust your own US govt that they wont use nukes? Because in the entire world history they are the only ones to have used it and and that has caused unimaginable destruction and loss of life. Indirectly for decades considering the radiation and the after effects of dropping a nuke.

Now about Iran / India
Iran is a signatory to the NPT. India is not. Hence technically it is binding on Iran to accept all the conditions which includes complete nuke disarmament etc etc.

I think everyone is aware of the different histories, especially in nuke proliferation of India and Iran.

India has never proliferated nukes to any country. It is well known fact in history that India has not invaded any country within the last 1000 yrs. Even after Indian independence in 1947 all the wars of India were only in self defense. India only seeks peace. If attacked unprovoked, like any other nation would do, India will destroy the enemy. Considering the hostile neighborhood of India do u think it is possible for India to give up nuclear weapons?? If u had nuclear armed neighbors like say Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or any country that is hostile towards the US; and the US had many wars with them would u give up nukes??

India has a well defined no first use policy in regards to a nuclear weapons conflict, which even the US does not have.

With Iran that is not the case. With the current radical govt they only seek the downfall of US / Israel. The effects of radical Islam is being felt world over. The Prez of Iran on many occasions has vowed to wipe out Israel from the world map. If Iran has nukes there is always a danger that they will pass it on to Syria and from there it will go to Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and other extremist organizations. The motive of all these states and organizations is to destroy US / UK / India and basically anything that is not Islamic. With the fanatics that they are, there is always a danger that they will use the nukes against US, Israel, India or some other state and start WW3 leading to complete destruction of mankind.

In India the US sees a reliable long term natural ally. In the war on terror / extremism and as a strategic counterweight to China.

Answer 3

the fact is we need help in this. you have said it your self. is this the right answer? I dont know it has backfired before and probably will again. But what is the answer? How do we control terrorist states and nuclear proliferation by our selves? I can see both sides to this story. we think because we have a say in it we can control it but later on we may or may not be involved. Its definately an important delima

Answer 4

I trust India with the bomb before I trust Iran with it. There is no moral equivalence between the two countries.

Answer 5

Sounds like a double standard. USA does not fear India bombing Israel.... Iran is another story.

Answer 6

Sounds double standard to me!