|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should India go ahead with the nuclear deal
After the cacaphony over the deal in the parliament it was revealed that many of the M.P's have no clue what the deal is about.So I felt there is a need to discuss this deal.So people give your opinion here with a strong basis for having such a view.
The question is should we go ahead with this deal?
For those who are not aware the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006
is a legal framework for Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation under which US wil provide access to civilian nuclear technology and access to nuclear fuel in exchange for IAEA safeguards on civilkian nuclear reactors. This agreement provides the legal basis for the 123 agreement with India.
This agreement requires the congressional approval of both the countries.
The BJP, the current main opposition party in the Indian parliament has asked the government not to accept the deal without a vote in the legislature. The CPI(M), an external parliamentary supporter of Manmohan Singh's governing UPA coalition, and several top nuclear scientists and institutions in India have asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to not accept the deal in its December 2006 form as it stipulates conditions that in some areas are more severe than the clauses in either the NPT or the CTBT. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has dared the left front to withdraw support to his government .
Source: http://www.newkerala.com/july.php?action=fullnews&id=48203
The question is should we go ahead with this deal?
For those who are not aware the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006
is a legal framework for Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation under which US wil provide access to civilian nuclear technology and access to nuclear fuel in exchange for IAEA safeguards on civilkian nuclear reactors. This agreement provides the legal basis for the 123 agreement with India.
This agreement requires the congressional approval of both the countries.
The BJP, the current main opposition party in the Indian parliament has asked the government not to accept the deal without a vote in the legislature. The CPI(M), an external parliamentary supporter of Manmohan Singh's governing UPA coalition, and several top nuclear scientists and institutions in India have asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to not accept the deal in its December 2006 form as it stipulates conditions that in some areas are more severe than the clauses in either the NPT or the CTBT. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has dared the left front to withdraw support to his government .
Source: http://www.newkerala.com/july.php?action=fullnews&id=48203
I would really like to read the complete text of both the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement before reaching an opinion about this. It's high time India broke free of the Nuclear sanctions it's been facing for too long, and from what I've been reading about the deal in the newspapers, I don't see much wrong with it. However, I will only support it as long as the NSG doesn't impose any more restrictions on India. It's noteworthy that while the Hyde Act pretty much prohibits India from conducting any more Nuclear Tests, there is nothing stopping the US from conducting any more tests in the future to further its nuclear arsenal. Double standards? We know India has not proliferated Nuclear secrets to any other country, and yet it's treated like a second-rate country. We KNOW Pakistani scientists have proliferated to a lot of countries (including North Korea), and Pakistan is a NATO ally. woo-hoo!
I would be more concerned, firstly, with the fact that India hasn't signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I'm sure there are/will be safeguards in place to make sure that this kind of technology doesn't get abused, it's not really a good look for the US to be selling fuel and technology to a non-NPT signatory and then in the same breath criticise Iran and North Korea (not neccessarily unduly) for developing their own nuclear capabilities.
Of course I might have things completely out of whack but I think it's something worth considering, espcially given that India is looking to be one of China's biggest competitors.
Of course I might have things completely out of whack but I think it's something worth considering, espcially given that India is looking to be one of China's biggest competitors.
The US can NOT be happy that India is nuclear power. The NPT needs to have real benefits to those that sign, and real pain for those that don't, in order to work -- but India is too big and too important to leave outside.
"Normal rules" don't fully apply to India (nor to the other nuke powers: US, Russia, China, UK, France; and Pakistan and [not-quite declared] Israel].
If India wants to normalize its relations with the US, India should sign. Of course India doesn't "need" the US, just like homebuyers don't "need" a bank to get a mortgage -- but most folks don't want to rent for 30 years to save up money for trailer. And India should look for the benefits of dealing the US, which could be substantial.
Better power-generating nukes are one obvious likely benefit for India.
"Normal rules" don't fully apply to India (nor to the other nuke powers: US, Russia, China, UK, France; and Pakistan and [not-quite declared] Israel].
If India wants to normalize its relations with the US, India should sign. Of course India doesn't "need" the US, just like homebuyers don't "need" a bank to get a mortgage -- but most folks don't want to rent for 30 years to save up money for trailer. And India should look for the benefits of dealing the US, which could be substantial.
Better power-generating nukes are one obvious likely benefit for India.
Definitely yes!
Every country have the same right to the certain thing. It include Nuclear power.
If some country keep nuclear power the others can too.
If some country want to kill others people with nuclear weapon, no one can guarantee the same thing will not happen to them.
You keep a gun with your hand , why I can't?
Every country have the same right to the certain thing. It include Nuclear power.
If some country keep nuclear power the others can too.
If some country want to kill others people with nuclear weapon, no one can guarantee the same thing will not happen to them.
You keep a gun with your hand , why I can't?
| TomGrey wrote: |
| The US can NOT be happy that India is nuclear power. The NPT needs to have real benefits to those that sign, and real pain for those that don't, in order to work -- but India is too big and too important to leave outside. |
I think the view, reflected by the US, that only a 'chosen few' countries should get away with having nuclear weapons is hypocritical. That said, I would much prefer that atomic weapons were around in the first place.
Nuclear weapons are (at the very least meant to be) completely unrelated to what the US is planning on now - however I personally think that unless India will sign the NPT, then they shouldn't be allowed access to US technology and fuel (responsibilites to the treaty and all that).
 |