The Economist cover story: "George W. Bush in Dr. Strangedeal"

Nuclear proliferation

Congress should veto George Bush's nuclear agreement with India

TEN years from now, will George Bush's determination to rewrite nuclear rules for preventing the bomb's spread be judged to have been courageously right or dangerously wrong? In striking his deal with India, allowing it to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favour a friend than to stick to a principle. He is gambling that the future benefits of accepting a rising India in all but name as a member of the nuclear club will outweigh the shock to the global anti-proliferation regime, already under severe strain from the nuclear dealings of North Korea and Iran. His gamble is a dangerous one. Meanwhile, in his rush to accommodate India, Mr Bush is missing a chance to win wider nuclear restraint in one of the world's tougher neighbourhoods.

New thinking is needed in the anti-proliferation game. North Korea has broken every rule of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and boasts proudly of its bomb. Iran claims to have no use for one, yet demands the “right” to pursue dangerous nuclear fuel-making technologies—as others may do in future unless creative solutions are found to deflect them—that could be abused for weapons-making. This week America and others were insisting at the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran not be allowed to bend the anti-nuclear rules out of shape to further what are assumed to be its weapons ambitions (see article). So why does Mr Bush propose doing just that for already nuclear-armed India?

more

India is the world's largest democracy. Why the HELL can't they have the bomb? Are powerful weapons only a tool that the White Western Nations should have? Sounds like it to me.

out Bush's hypocrisy early in the article:

"This week America and others were insisting at the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran not be allowed to bend the anti-nuclear rules out of shape to further what are assumed to be its weapons ambitions (see article). So why does Mr Bush propose doing just that for already nuclear-armed India?"

The invisible hand of the market place will protect us.


:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Of they want to develop nukes we are not required to help. GET IT?

Archives - March 01, 2006
How the US Learned to Love the Bomb (Again)
The slightly bizarre idea of 'user-friendly' nuclear weapons. On the whole score of proliferation we're always hearing plenty about the dangers posed by the Irans and North Koreas of this world but, as we're about to see, while all that has been going on the US itself has been quietly beavering away on a program aimed at completely upgrading its nuclear arsenal, including the development of tactical weapons - mini-nukes that could be used on the battlefield. Thom Cookes reports.
  22:41 secs  
REPORTER: Is the US, right now, developing new nuclear weapons?

HANS KRISTENSEN, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: Right now? It's in the process of developing a replacement for its entire stockpile.

REPORTER: How is that affecting the talk in the Administration about arms control?

DARYL KIMBALL, DIRECTOR, ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION: Well, you're assuming that there's talk in the Administration about arms control, which there isn't and frankly, this program is not well known outside the US at this stage. It's not even all that well known within Congress.

At the same time that the US is applying extreme pressure to North Korea and Iran to drop their nuclear programs, it's quietly preparing for a new atomic age.
There's a push to develop new, more user-friendly weapons, such as nuclear bunker-busters, that could completely change the way wars are fought.

GENERAL EUGENE HABIGER: In my view, that is a mistake, because what you are doing, what we are doing is developing a nuclear weapon that becomes more viable to use, more attractive to use, and nuclear weapons are so horrific that it does not make sense to develop a weapon that is more attractive to use.

Throughout the four decades of the Cold War, the US maintained and developed a massive nuclear arsenal designed for just one purpose - the total annihilation of the former Soviet Union.
All the thousands of bombers, ballistic missiles and nuclear submarines were designed to deter the Soviets from even thinking of using their weapons.

DR STRANGELOVE, MOVIE CLIP: Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the fear to attack.

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=transcript&dte=2006-03-01&headlineid=1077

Go Here to see video:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12133.htm

From re-igniting the nuclear arms race, to doing away with hard-fought wins like environmnental standards and food product labeling, the neocons have a death wish for us all.

Hello! Read Kevin Phillips' book, American Dynasty. Armaments and warfare are what the Bushes are about. There is perhaps no clearer pattern in the last 100 years of American history.