Should USA Senate pass Nuclear Deal with India?

Quickly and hardly all encompassing in a round about way:

US owes one to the Indian people (civilians), not the Indian government. International sanctions after 1974 nuclear test retarded civilian nuclear power program. Running water, basic sanitation and electricity for townships and villages that could otherwise be had for a song was shelved. India resorted to importing nuclear reactors from Russia, subject to operational IAEA safeguards.

Surrounding geographic threat was largely reduced. 17 August 1988, President Zia Ul-Haq, a proponent and planner for nuclear arming, was killed in a plane crash. The soviets pulled out from Afghanistan, which helped reduce geographic threat of the Cold War.

China being essentially communist counter poised with a democratic India, is a reasonable choice as any for an ally in foreign policy: Arunachal Pradesh, claimed by China and India, was made part of the Indian union without China’s consent. Both sides bolstered about 200,000 soldiers, May 1987.

Nuclear proliferation was never a technical issue insofar as India had never signed one to begin.

Right to exercise sovereignty in protecting its borders from Pakistan and China. India has had its own nuclear capability in the first place.

Trade and economic relations between the US and India have seldom been better.

India’s government and peoples’ intention and track record is to see that nuclear energy stabilizes the economy by allowing factories to run without down time and provides basic amenities that developed countries (Iran, US, and so on) take for granted: running water, flushing toilets, showers, electricity. Naturally, Peace activists would prefer a country to remain in the dark ages using kerosene lamps without providing a practicable solution.

As to the 3rd May 2005 bill, it is subject to further revision. The premise provided above in general was not wholly correct to begin with, although there is always a possibility that all means go to armaments.

Constant supervision and monitoring is required as always that the purpose is wholly and without exception, for edification of people of India and the way politics are driven by its leadership.

More atomic weapons anywhere is a bad idea. The more atomic weapons in existence the greater the chance that one will be used. Even if the intent of all the nations with nukes is honourable at present (a doubtful proposition), intentions can change and the nuclear threat remains. The best policy is to prevent more nations from acquiring nukes. Nations that already have nukes should reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals. There was some progress a while back with reductions in Soviet and US arsenals, but recent history has been less encouraging.

You are correct that India can ill afford nukes. India is a richer country than Pakistan, so Pakistan can afford nukes even less. The resources would be better spent providing food, medicine, education and housing to the populations of both countries. The scientists of both countries would be better employed finding a cure for cancer or developing green technologies to preserve the earth's ecosystem. The situation in N. Korea is even more absurd. In the midst of a famine, N. Korea spends enormous resources on nukes rather then feeding its population.

More nukes for India is a bad idea. More nukes for Pakistan is a bad idea. Both India and Pakistan should work toward greater peace and stability and the elimination of all nukes.

India is a democratic country, which is developing very fast with over a billion population. It needs the electrical enrgy to cater to a large population. Without nuclear power co-operation it will be forced to depend on the fossil fuels. This is a very bad situation to the whole world as the emissions from coal fired or gas fired plants will cause sever environmental problems.

So it is a really golden opportunity for the US(and the world), to help india make power in a environmentally clean route.( Nuclear is arguably the cleanest form of power).

India gives shelter to 20% of world population and is surrounded by non-democratic countries. So I feel , it is necessary for it to have nuclear deterrant to safegaurd the 20% of humans living o the earth. Being a responsible republic with a stable democracy throughout its 60 years of independance, the world is assured that the weapons is only an deterrant and Inda has no first strike policy.

Actually, the nuclear program you are referring to only applies to the civilian nuclear field. The whole point of this deal was for India to seperate its military and civilian nuclear programs. And India's nuclear tests did not have the full backing of the USA and Europe. If I remember correctly, there were sanctions imposed on India after its 1994 tests relating to the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act.

But now, Indo-US relations are quite strong and it seems all-right for many beneficial deals to take place such as transfer of technology. Besides, India has a no-first-use, minimum deterrent policy which seems to be sound. Furthermore, Pakistan does not have the industrial capacity to match India in terms of WMDs. Of course I agree that a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons would be extremely helpful, a nation has the right to defend itself from hostile interests if attacked.

P.S. Its always funny when people stereotype India as a mango republic. It'll be a blast 10-20 years from now, when India emerges as a global superpower with one of the largest economies in the world :P

India is a independant country.

So if they want to devolop Nuclear Power they will do. USA is not the God to take decision for world. It is only a another country among near 180 countries in the world.

How else India could become a Mango Republic{Free Mangoes all the time Like Bananas from Banana Republics}

India-US-Nuke Deal India has made it sparkling that it does not settle for any criminal binding on nuclear attempting out. "there is not any question of signing the excellent try Ban Treaty (CTBT). we've our voluntary moratorium (on nuclear attempting out). That place maintains to be," Doordarshan information suggested right here Saturday, quoting national protection Adviser M ok Narayanan who became speaking with newshounds whilst accompanying top Minister Manmohan Singh on his 3-day pass to to the Philippines. He became asked approximately US insistence on a criminal binding banning nuclear tests and putting a cap on fissile fabric. Noting that it has specific concerns with connection with the those days- enacted US regulation on civil nuclear cooperation, India has already made it sparkling that it will "walk out" of the deal if at any factor it variety of feels to undermine its national pastimes. New Delhi, in spite of the undeniable fact that, expressed self belief that the climate over which it has "actual" explanation for undertaking, which contains conditional get admission to to reprocessing technologies and reprocessing of spent gas, would be addressed in the 123 contract being negotiated to operationalize the deal. top minister's specific envoy on nuclear difficulty Shyam Saran those days suggested India has conveyed to the US that it became no longer waiting to settle for any legally-binding provision on destiny nuclear attempting out in the 123 contract and emphasised that New Delhi would conform to fissile fabric administration in effortless terms below any multilateral framework. He suggested India will preserve the main appropriate to habit nuclear try yet would would desire to be arranged for repercussions inclusive of snapping of the civil nuclear cooperation with the US because of the fact the waivers in the cutting-edge act do no longer practice to destiny detonations. "There are concerns, of direction... If at any factor, it relatively is going to become obvious that it (deal) is something which might undermine India's national pastimes, we can walk out, no rely how plenty political investment has been made," he suggested.

How else are we going to get the damn mangoes?