ASCI Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 "Proliferation is certainly a concern and a part of our discussions, and we've got a good faith gesture by the Indian government that I'll be able to take to the Congress," Bush said. "But the other thing that our Congress has got to understand — that it's in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off of the global demand for energy. ... To the extent that we can reduce demand for fossil fuels, it will help the American consumer." I fail to see how this deal will benefit us economically by taking demand off fossil fuel. Maybe in the short run it will but in the long run wide spread civilian nuclear power in India will hasten wide spread growth of the middle class who will in return demand more autos and products made out of fossil fuel. How does this help us? Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I don't think that this has a damn thing to do with fossil fuels, but that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I don't think that this has a damn thing to do with fossil fuels, but that's just me. 616302[/snapback] Balance of power double speak, hmm, makes sense and actually I consider it a good move. A not so subtle threat to Iran methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Balance of power double speak, hmm, makes sense and actually I consider it a good move. A not so subtle threat to Iran methinks. 616318[/snapback] Sends an I luv U to China, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Sends an I luv U to China, too. 616323[/snapback] It's very smart, strategically speaking. We bracket the Muslim loonies with two allies (India and Israel) and help keep China in check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 It's very smart, strategically speaking. We bracket the Muslim loonies with two allies (India and Israel) and help keep China in check. 616330[/snapback] As long as Musharraf in Pakistan stays alive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 As long as Musharraf in Pakistan stays alive! 616338[/snapback] A not often mentioned, but very scary subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 A not often mentioned, but very scary subject. 616344[/snapback] I have no sense of the leadership behind him, would muslim extremists take over when he is gone or does he have enough infrastructure and successor strength to keep the regime going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I have no sense of the leadership behind him, would muslim extremists take over when he is gone or does he have enough infrastructure and successor strength to keep the regime going? 616360[/snapback] All the more reason to cozy up with India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I have no sense of the leadership behind him, would muslim extremists take over when he is gone or does he have enough infrastructure and successor strength to keep the regime going? 616360[/snapback] I'm not as up on it as I probably should be. I think he has a pretty good power base, but a lot of factions within it have played both sides of the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I fail to see how this deal will benefit us economically by taking demand off fossil fuel. Maybe in the short run it will but in the long run wide spread civilian nuclear power in India will hasten wide spread growth of the middle class who will in return demand more autos and products made out of fossil fuel. How does this help us? Link 616241[/snapback] Not much talk about the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Not much talk about the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, is there? 616439[/snapback] Read the treaty. In short, all games are technically legal until one reaches the stage where one has an actual viable weapon. It can be interpreted right to the point where where the pit meets the device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Anyone have the actual text of the deal? There is a lot of commentary on problems with the deal, but nobody is actually allowing us to see the text to allow us to make up our own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm not as up on it as I probably should be. I think he has a pretty good power base, but a lot of factions within it have played both sides of the street. 616368[/snapback] ...and one of Musharraf's beef's as president was with the Islamic militants in the ISI, which I understand is NOT happy about his attitude. And regardless, they're still a major domestic power broker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Read the treaty. In short, all games are technically legal until one reaches the stage where one has an actual viable weapon. It can be interpreted right to the point where where the pit meets the device. 616443[/snapback] I guess my point was that India has never signed the NPT. I haven't seen anything mentioned about bringing this up during the presidential visit, so the proposed cooperation with nuclear reactors wasn't framed in the context of India joining the NPT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 It's very smart, strategically speaking. We bracket the Muslim loonies with two allies (India and Israel) and help keep China in check. 616330[/snapback] Smart except for the fact that both India and Israel are outflanked by several "loonies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I guess my point was that India has never signed the NPT. I haven't seen anything mentioned about bringing this up during the presidential visit, so the proposed cooperation with nuclear reactors wasn't framed in the context of India joining the NPT. 616477[/snapback] First, my very first comment has to do with about the other 12 things discussed and agreed on in India-US meetings. All that is getting mentioned is the nuclear deal. One issue was India separating the linkages from it's military and civilian programs, which I think negated any NPT issues for the new agreement. Not sure. I think the text to the actual agreement is being sat on right now with some internal Indian parliment issues. I don't think the nuclear thing is weapons related anyway, I just think the whole thing is about alliances. It all has to go to Congress anyway, so I'm pretty sure things will come out clearer there. They have to approve changes to NSG rules for that part to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Smart except for the fact that both India and Israel are outflanked by several "loonies". 616488[/snapback] I'm fairly confident that no muslim nation has the firepower of Israel or India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm fairly confident that no muslim nation has the firepower of Israel or India. 616554[/snapback] Hence the emergence of the poor man's guided missile - the martyr zealot. But, it was only a matter of time before we had to move our Risk pieces around the board. It's hard to defend nuclear non-proliferation in a lot of circles when you are the one with the most nukes. Anyone who has them now I feel at least a little confidence with, including believe it or not DPRK. But blending martyrdom, ideology and nuclear weapons does not a pretty picture make, especially when one has countries out there that feel they can absorb an attack. Depending on your point of view (in that part of the world) it's hard to justify not going there when your sworn adversaries have them, and I think that colors a lot of thinking in the UN and elsewhere. Someone not threatened, at least in their own minds doesn't have a compelling need for the investment and the baggage. Several countries have dropped their programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 One issue was India separating the linkages from it's military and civilian programs, which I think negated any NPT issues for the new agreement. Not sure. I think the text to the actual agreement is being sat on right now with some internal Indian parliment issues. I don't think the nuclear thing is weapons related anyway, I just think the whole thing is about alliances. 616490[/snapback] Gotcha. That seems to make sense to me. I don't know much about India, but I think it is smart and timely to engage them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts