akram_rejuvinated
Local Club Star
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Runs
- 1,897
The controversial United States and India Nuclear technology exchange deal just passed the U.S. Congress and is expected to pass through the Senate with only a handful of senators such as Russ Feingold and John Kerry presenting a reservation towards the possible outcome. While i personally am delighted that the deal passed the first hurdle and it will have several positive outcomes: for one, india's nuclear program, which has so far been controlled by the military will now be under civilian control and thereby open to IAE inspectors' oversight... making the posiblity of using the program for weapon technology tedious if not impossible. moreover, nuclear technology presents a cleaner source of energy generation as opposed to coal and natural gas plants (in fact the net CO2 emissions per kilo watt hour for nuclear energy is less than even wind and hydroelectric when you factor in the CO2 emissions during the construction).
However, the deal presents a direct violation of the NPT: Non Proliferation Treaty (i.e. nuclear technology will not be shared or sold by nations possessing the same). United States and India reasoned that both countries have a impeccable record of non proliferation and there have been no instances of the technology falling into malicious hands, and hence, the deal was pushed through... the same can be reasoned by a number of other nations. for instance, a number of eastern european countries and central asian countries might be tempted to engage in nuclear technology trade with developing nations for economic benifit... moreover, who is to judge how "responsible" the nation(s) has been with its nuclear program?
There have been calls from Pakistan for a similar deal but so far, nothing of the same seems on the horizon (thanks in part to the A. Q. Khan network), it is a bit unfair to deny a developing nation access to technology due to the actions of a small group of individuals bent upon personal gain. Moreover, India is still not a signatory of the NPT deal, so that makes the deal even more dubious.
Add to the strange circumstances, Iran is currently persuing a nuclear program that well, anyone with atleast a single digit IQ can tell is for eventual use as a potential weapons program. How can a credible case be made against Iran for its pursuit inspite of the obvious, if India is permitted to gain nuclear technology from a NPT signatory?
However, the deal presents a direct violation of the NPT: Non Proliferation Treaty (i.e. nuclear technology will not be shared or sold by nations possessing the same). United States and India reasoned that both countries have a impeccable record of non proliferation and there have been no instances of the technology falling into malicious hands, and hence, the deal was pushed through... the same can be reasoned by a number of other nations. for instance, a number of eastern european countries and central asian countries might be tempted to engage in nuclear technology trade with developing nations for economic benifit... moreover, who is to judge how "responsible" the nation(s) has been with its nuclear program?
There have been calls from Pakistan for a similar deal but so far, nothing of the same seems on the horizon (thanks in part to the A. Q. Khan network), it is a bit unfair to deny a developing nation access to technology due to the actions of a small group of individuals bent upon personal gain. Moreover, India is still not a signatory of the NPT deal, so that makes the deal even more dubious.
Add to the strange circumstances, Iran is currently persuing a nuclear program that well, anyone with atleast a single digit IQ can tell is for eventual use as a potential weapons program. How can a credible case be made against Iran for its pursuit inspite of the obvious, if India is permitted to gain nuclear technology from a NPT signatory?
Last edited:
