Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Can we talk about the US-India nuke deal?
I know it's not Palin!Palin!Palin!.
The basics: the Senate approved a deal today to permit civilian nuclear trade between the two countries.
It's controversial because India is a nuclear state that is not party to the NPT, and tested nukes in 1998 in an escalating arms race with Pakistan. While this bill only permits the trade of nuclear fuel and other components for energy purposes; as a non-NPT state that does not allow international monitors access to it' military nuke sites it may be difficult to fully monitor India's use. The agreement also tacitly supports India's nuclear status.
Complicating matters, the agreement is extremely contraversial in India as well--resulting in some parties dropping out of the governing coalition and a confidence vote on PM Singh brought before parliament (he survived the vote).
So what do you think? Is it critical we do this in order to maintain India as an ally to counterbalance China's power? Is it reckless to support nuclear proliferation in India/Pakistan (which many argue we have already done by not outright condeming either country)? Will this support for a non-NPT nuclear state damage our ability to drive a hard line with others (Iran, North Korea)?
Here are some of the best stories I've seen on the topic today. And sorry, but I think the NYTimes is a perfectly valid source on this one. Besides, I'm pretty sure the India Times opinion piece far outweighs any very minor anti-Bush bias in the NYT story. The Reuters India piece has a nice Q&A that explains some of the potential implications.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7645522.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/washington/02webnuke.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3551691.cms
http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINSP30889520081002?sp=true
Re: Can we talk about the US-India nuke deal?
Yes. My understanding is it will allow India to acquire US nuclear technologies and fuel--not actual weapons.
But they've already developed weapons on their own, so it's not as though they couldn't reverse engineer something given the appropriate tools.
I guess I don't understand if there is really that much of a difference between nuclear energy and nuclear bombs and other things like dirty bombs, esp in terms of aquiring the raw materials.
Totally agreed mxolisi. I was just curious about the nature of this deal.
I haven't read the articles (I will later though) so here's my uninformed gut reaction. I think the biggest foreign policy challenge the next administration will face is Pakistan/Afghanistan. Russia too but I think Pakistan will come first. So I think this sends a message to Pakistan that we have no problem making other friends in their region, so they had better get their act together (re: al qaeda) if they want us on their side. I remember something about Pakistan and China weapons talks (or something like that) and it's a scary prospect too, but the rumor that Pakistan is soft on terrorism is a more immediate concern IMO.
As far as the NPT goes, I think Iran has demonstrated how useless it is, or at the least it is attempting to.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
Oh my goodness, I think I have to say ditto caden. (Okay, sky hasn't fallen yet!) This would seem like a move at least partially designed to put pressure on Pakistan, which could be a good idea.
However, until you posted this here, I hadn't even heard about the deal despite supposedly perusing the news headlines this morning. Guess this isn't headline news today, or I don't peruse well.
Thanks for the links. I definitely will check them out.
I'm with you. Some of this really gets confusing to me at times. I'm glad this was posted because I noticed something about this on the crawl last night on CNN and was like, "Huh?"
Thank you for giving me a new hilarious phrase to use IRL - "engaging in fuckery_" I'm totally stealing that.
Caden, I think I agree, although I would say China will also be a key foreign policy issue and I don't know if our strategy of using India as a foil to China will succeed in the long run--India has plenty of issues on which it agrees with both countries and I don't see them always taking our side because at this point we may need them more than they need us in some circumstances.
I need to know more about how we deal/dealt with Pakistan's nukes. I read in the paper this morning that the Spanish intelligence services have published a report indicating that the Pakistani equivalent of the CIA (an extraordinarily shady organization) has been funding/aiding the Taliban. Under Musharaff who we gave carte blanche to spend billions in "aid" however he saw fit. There's a lot more to the security issues in that region than we know, I think.
I've read numerous stories about how Pakistan is an ally in name only. I agree shady stuff is going on. However, I don't think we know the entire story, given its classified nature.
I also agree China will be a key issue. Absolutely, and it's scary to contemplate. But I look at them as more of a long-term problem than one in the next 4 years. Not that we shouldn't consider it now, just that they won't be biggest problem that quickly. They will need us more than we need them (economically speaking) for a few more years so I don't they will try to eff us over until we need them more. But that time is coming. I don't know anything about India's relations with China so I can't comment intelligently on that topic.
I'm reading a book right now about the rise of modern India. There's an entire chapter about the increasing importance of the China-India-US triangle of relations.
Apparently China and India are major trading partners now, and may soon be the most important trade relationship (in pure dollar terms) in the world. They both initially pursued protectionism against the other, but soon realized that the goods the other produces tend to complement their own.
There's more to it--they've reached major agreements on issues such as Tibet, the Dali Lama, Sikkim and other disputed territories along their borders and have similar views on Iran, intellectual property protections, environmental regulation and other issues.
For some reason I had never seriously considered the relationship between the two, and now I'm fascinated by it.
That is interesting.
I've read about India's and China's economic reforms but only as they relate to their own respective pasts.
It makes sense considering each country has similar problems with poverty and overpopulation (and bad gov't, can't underestimate that!) but also offers different industries that would be mutually beneficial and compatible.
Wow, I am completely oblivious to international news and it's scary since I sit in front of scrawling news all day.
While I am very uncomfortable with exchanging any type of nuclear trade b/w countries, I am not surprised. Like caden and Fenton pointed out, it is more advantageous for us to help India.
I honestly think it is a toss up b/w Pakistan and Iran when it comes to most threatening country against the U.S. Iran has that lovely geographic blackmail card over the strait that carries oil out of that region. I am terrified but I think our government would be more concerned about the threat of our oil supply vs terrorists if given the choice. I really hope I am just making this all up in my head.