By Jimmy Carter: A Dangerous Deal With India

WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801210.html

A Dangerous Deal With India

By Jimmy Carter
Wednesday, March 29, 2006

During the past five years the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower. This change in policies has sent uncertain signals to other countries, including North Korea and Iran, and may encourage technologically capable nations to choose the nuclear option. The proposed nuclear deal with India is just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation.

<<snip>>

Our government has abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and spent more than $80 billion on a doubtful effort to intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental missiles, with annual costs of about $9 billion. We have also forgone compliance with the previously binding limitation on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, with announced plans for earth-penetrating "bunker busters," some secret new "small" bombs, and a move toward deployment of destructive weapons in space. Another long-standing policy has been publicly reversed by our threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These decisions have aroused negative responses from NPT signatories, including China, Russia and even our nuclear allies, whose competitive alternative is to upgrade their own capabilities without regard to arms control agreements.

<<snip>>

It must be remembered that there are no detectable efforts being made to seek confirmed reductions of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, of which the United States possesses about 12,000, Russia 16,000, China 400, France 350, Israel 200, Britain 185, India and Pakistan 40 each -- and North Korea has sufficient enriched nuclear fuel for a half-dozen. A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War.

<<snip>>

There was some fanfare in announcing that India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012, and that U.S. companies might win two of those reactor contracts, but this is a minuscule benefit compared with the potential costs. India may be a special case, but reasonable restraints are necessary. The five original nuclear powers have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, and India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity.

<<snip>>

There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms? At the same time, Israel's uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status entices neighboring leaders in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other states to seek such armaments, for status or potential use. The world has observed that among the "axis of evil," nonnuclear Iraq was invaded and a perhaps more threatening North Korea has not been attacked.

The global threat of proliferation is real, and the destructive capability of irresponsible nations -- and perhaps even some terrorist groups -- will be enhanced by a lack of leadership among nuclear powers that are not willing to restrain themselves or certain chosen partners. Like it or not, the United States is at the forefront in making these crucial strategic decisions. A world armed with nuclear weapons could be a terrible legacy of the wrong choices.

...wow, that's a lot of heatlh care, right there.

Fuck'm.

with Bush's deal with India.

.....going to end up paying for this crap for many, many years to come. If the earth and humans last that long.:hide:

but one important thing to note is that Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, and Argentina don't face any major hostile nuclear powers on their borders. Japan is the closest in that they face a threat from,NK, but Japan is still under a US defense agreement (I believe that to be the case). The US wouldn't allow Japan to be attacked, and if Japan were attacked did the US would likely retaliate. India faces China and Pakistan, both of whom are friendly with each other and have nuclear agreements of their own.

Also, people need to understand that India will not sign the NPT anytime soon. Forty nukes isn't 400 as Carter himself pointed out. Also, India isn't interested in being dictated by a communist dictatorship, and four other powers, several of which are now peripheral anyways.

While I think the way Bush "promised" the agreement was arrogant (he doesn't have the power to agree to something that needs to be debated and then voted on by congress), the deal doesn't even help their military nuclear program. I'd say it's better to bring some of India's nuclear reactors under international monitoring than having none. If India were to violate the terms, then the deal would obviously be broken.

I understand the concerns of proliferation and share them, but at this point, I think the NPT has to be revisited, not necessarily trashed as Bolton and Bush likely want, but it's effectiveness is now questionable considering the way NK has violated it (and possibly Iran has as well). Also, I am a little amused by the international outcry now with this deal. The world didn't seem to care very much when China struck several nuclear agreements with Pakistan...or when they transferred missile technology to them...

Especially when it comes to foreign policy their coverage either seeks to frame the debate in order to manipulate public opinion or present false dichotomies in order to incite or divert and confuse. The run up to the Iraq invasion being an extreme but classic example; unless one read political magazines (preferably foreign)it would have been impossible to fathom the depth of the press' duplicity.