Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

  1. #1
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure | Politics | Reuters

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Monday completing a 2005 U.S.-India nuclear cooperation deal would boost investment opportunities in his country, a hopeful sign for U.S. companies eyeing India's potential $150 billion market in power plants.
    Obama should kill this deal as soon as possible. Seriously. For a candidacy that pledged to eliminate nuclear threats, going forth with a backdoor deal that guts the NPT is unbelievable.

    Obama should stand up to the Indians and state "Sign the NPT and we'll have a deal."

    Setting a precedent that you can get nuclear power deals without signing the NPT is an awful, awful idea.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    I disagree. India needs that energy for development. It's already developing in slow motion and needs all the investment it can get. India is transparent enough as a nation that we could monitor its nuclear progress.

  3. #3
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I disagree. India needs that energy for development. It's already developing in slow motion and needs all the investment it can get. India is transparent enough as a nation that we could monitor its nuclear progress.
    I don't disagree that India needs the development and nuclear really is the way to power India without massive carbon emissions, I do about its transparency though. Especially with many of its mixed military civilian operations that India has declared would be off limits to US inspections. That is not good.

    Furthermore, it is a bad, bad, bad idea to allow certain nations to slip past NPT obligations while we expect other nations to abide regardless of their transparency. A standard "sign the npt" unified front should be held.

    We set the precedent of not needing to sign the NPT and guess what the Russians are going to do?

    We really don't want individual nations being those monitoring non-NPT members. As flawed as the IAEA is, it's better then having friendly nations monitor each other.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    We have no choice but to accept a nuclear India, even Obama knows this.....

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I don't disagree that India needs the development and nuclear really is the way to power India without massive carbon emissions, I do about its transparency though. Especially with many of its mixed military civilian operations that India has declared would be off limits to US inspections. That is not good.

    Furthermore, it is a bad, bad, bad idea to allow certain nations to slip past NPT obligations while we expect other nations to abide regardless of their transparency. A standard "sign the npt" unified front should be held.

    We set the precedent of not needing to sign the NPT and guess what the Russians are going to do?

    We really don't want individual nations being those monitoring non-NPT members. As flawed as the IAEA is, it's better then having friendly nations monitor each other.
    I would agree except that India already has a fully stocked nuclear weapons program. It's not like investing in nuclear power plants is going to make them anymore dangerous. That mixed military presence you speak of has been just as threatening this whole time.

    India never signed the NPT so it's not obligated to allow inspections, and I don't blame it. Why would they invite the U.S. to just come in and criticize its work? And why should their failure to sign it limit investment?

    If the U.S. doesn't agree, they will just seek assistance from another willing nation. China? Russia? Do we really want that? At least with U.S. investors we can monitor the paper trail. Since there is no way they will sign the NPT, given the rivalry with Pakistan and its alliance with the U.S., we might as well settle for being the provider.

  6. #6
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I would agree except that India already has a fully stocked nuclear weapons program. It's not like investing in nuclear power plants is going to make them anymore dangerous. That mixed military presence you speak of has been just as threatening this whole time.
    While that is indeed true, allowing them the trade without the NPT more or less condones and legitimatizes it.

    India never signed the NPT so it's not obligated to allow inspections, and I don't blame it. Why would they invite the U.S. to just come in and criticize its work? And why should their failure to sign it limit investment?
    Without inspections, how do we know what they we are selling them as civilian isn't being used for military? India is a big fat proliferation problem. I don't see how legitimizing it makes us safer.

    If the U.S. doesn't agree, they will just seek assistance from another willing nation. China? Russia? Do we really want that?
    Not at all. But neither do the Russians and Chinese want us selling to India or anyone else that we are friendly with but hasn't signed the NPT. Hence why a unified front is far better as it eliminates the problems all of us have with each other making side deals.

    At least with U.S. investors we can monitor the paper trail. Since there is no way they will sign the NPT, given the rivalry with Pakistan and its alliance with the U.S., we might as well settle for being the provider.
    Then we outta have both of them sign with nice fat packages of nuclear deals waiting once they sign. And objectively, it would be better for both of them to have outside assurance that neither side is cheating. But objectivity often dies first.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    While that is indeed true, allowing them the trade without the NPT more or less condones and legitimatizes it.
    I'm sorry, but the tired old tactic of placing embargoes on nations that we don't agree with is no longer relevant. U.S. foreign policy is a bunch of double-speak, treacherous non-sense. If you side with the U.S. you can do basically whatever you want; if you don't, then you suddenly aren't entitled to anything.

    India didn't sign the NPT, and the U.S. isn't the world police. If they want to pursue nuclear power for infrastructure, I support it. If the U.S. doesn't want to invest in it because of political interests, then India will just have to find another investor, now won't it?

    My view is that, given India's past relationship with the USSR, it would be far better for the U.S. to be that investor, since it places infrastructure under mutual cooperation. At least that gives the U.S. some oversight without the need for petty political posturing.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Without inspections, how do we know what they we are selling them as civilian isn't being used for military? India is a big fat proliferation problem. I don't see how legitimizing it makes us safer.
    The answer is: we don't know. I'm curious to know why you think that India is a proliferation problem, given that it already has nuclear arms. How much more of a problem can there be? Clearly the nuclear material within its borders has already been handled well in the past 20 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not at all. But neither do the Russians and Chinese want us selling to India or anyone else that we are friendly with but hasn't signed the NPT. Hence why a unified front is far better as it eliminates the problems all of us have with each other making side deals.
    I see your point from a U.S. strategic/power perspective, but that's the White House's problem. I'm looking at it from India's perspective. It wants more efficient energy sources, so it's going to go for them whether the U.S. wants it to or not. The U.S. has very little power over India's choice. We can either be the provider and thus have some oversight, or we can be righteous and say no... in which case they will turn to other nations as you have suggested.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Then we outta have both of them sign with nice fat packages of nuclear deals waiting once they sign. And objectively, it would be better for both of them to have outside assurance that neither side is cheating. But objectivity often dies first.
    I really doubt that's going to happen, for multiple reasons.

  8. #8
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: In U.S., Indian PM touts nuclear deal, infrastructure

    What the **** is Obama doing?

    Money and Arms to Pakistan?

    A Nuclear deal to India?

    Do Presidents ever read history!?
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •