Nuclear materials and India

[SimonBones 1]

I've been reading up on some of the recent news on talks to sell India some nucear materials, example:

http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINL86794620080908

I'm a bit confused, maybe someone can explain to me... for years India has been banned from deals with the Nuclear Suppliers Group because it is one of the overy few country in the world to not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So instead of having them join the treaty, we create a waiver in order to sell them nuclear materials? What's the point of the treaty if we are just going to make waivers for those who don't want to comply?

Any of you more educated folks care to explain?

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[PhreeZone 15]

Captialism at its best. We have something they want (fuel in this case), they have money we want. Some companies lobbists were able to convince people that the best interests of everyone would be to sell them the material needed.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[nanook 1]

It may be easier to draft a waiver than rewrite a whole treaty that everyone has to sign again. Maybe it's that simple.

India definitely needs the fuel. Their navy is expanding nuke-wise also.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[SimonBones 1]

Yeah they've bought a couple of old Russian ballistic nuclear subs which will hold a couple of warheads and have a few new Indian models being built for themselves too!

So is having an anti-proliferation treaty pointless? The UN has sanctioned North Korea and Iran for violating it, but India refuses to be involved for years and we just shrug and sell them whatever they want?

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Yeah they've bought a couple of old Russian ballistic nuclear subs which will hold a couple of warheads and have a few new Indian models being built for themselves too!

So is having an anti-proliferation treaty pointless? The UN has sanctioned North Korea and Iran for violating it, but India refuses to be involved for years and we just shrug and sell them whatever they want?

We need THEM. Who's going to buy/work at all the 7-11s?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[nanook 1]

Besides, those dots on their foreheads are cute. "You are here."

India isn't anywhere close to Iran or North Korea.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Besides, those dots on their foreheads are cute. "You are here."

India isn't anywhere close to Iran or North Korea.

I sometimes ponder where the next use of a nuclear weapon in anger, i.e., since 1945, will occur. (More a question of when, not whether, I figure.) Kashmir usually figures pretty high up on the list.

[SimonBones 1]

I'm pretty sure the trade agreements are opening up lines for selling civilian power plant nuclear materials only. The deal also includes opening up a bunch of India nuclear sited to IAEA inspections. They have been pretty armed for a while in nuclear weapons though and have been pretty cranky with the Pakistanis (who also have the bomb).

Not sure what the statement, "India isn't anywhere close to Iran or North Korea" means. India is pretty smack in the middle between the two geographically, all three share the same continent. By all means India is much more technologically advanced then the two combined.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[Jasmin 0]

Edited to correct bad spelling:

To keep it simple, the NNPT is designed to keep the status quo ie to not add to the number of nuclear-weapon states (NWS).

So for India to join, it must do so as a non-nuclear-weapon state (NNWS). But India is hardly likely to disarm, given that it has two nuclear armed neighbours with which it has had skirmishes/stand-offs: Pakistan (not a signatory) and China (NNPT-NWS).

Proponents argue that a safeguards advantage of this agreement being signed is that (off memory) 14 of India's nuclear sites are now designated as civillian and therefore fair game for inspections by the UN watchdog (the IAEA).

But detractors argue it undermines the relevance and standing of the NNPT.

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[SimonBones 1]

So what are the consequences then off being non-signatory? It absolutely undermines the relevance of the NNPT. Iran and North Korea have withdrawn from the treaty, but they are an "axis of evil" and are constantly having sanctions put on them by the US. When India doesn't want to play by the rules, we just bend them to fit them in.

I think we just look like hypocrites to do it this way and not just bring an obvious nuclear weapons state into the treaty as NWS.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[Jasmin 0]

You're incorrect, only North Korea has withdrawn from the NNPT, Iran is still a a signatory but withdrew from the Additional Protocols.

Also, the very text of the NNPT forbids India being recognised as a NWS; India's first test explosion was in 1974, so it can never meet the NNPT's (article ix) definition.

China and France only joined the NNPT in 1992, but both were able to do so as nuclear-weapons states due to their having "manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967."

The NNPT has had clear cut failures, such as North Korea and its successes, such as South Africa. But then there's the nuances like the debate over whether R&D of nextgen nuclear weapons is in breach of article vi and the signatory/safeguards/sanctions conundrum of Taiwan.

Edited to add:It reminds me of something a regulator once said to me: Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, there's always going to be others who see shades of gray....

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[SimonBones 1]

Glad to see there is someone on this forum that is an expert on more than just US bipartisan politics mud slinging.

I still think that this deal with India just goes to show that the current NNPT is inadequate. It either should be revised or scrapped. It seems only to be serving as a tool for international political leverage and setting sanctions on people who aren't liked. But hey, it's kind of like the way of the UN right?

I suppose if we let India in as a NWS we'd have to let them join the security council too.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[Jasmin 0]

I think there's some merit to the argument that one of the primary threats to the NNPT is relevance; but as South Africa has shown, its by no means a write-off and the NNPT does have one of the highest adherence and ratification rates of any treaty in existence.

As for the Security Council, aren't there some temporary seats opening up in 2011 or 2012?? LOL

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I'm a bit confused, maybe someone can explain to me... for years India has been banned from deals with the Nuclear Suppliers Group because it is one of the overy few country in the world to not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So instead of having them join the treaty, we create a waiver in order to sell them nuclear materials? What's the point of the treaty if we are just going to make waivers for those who don't want to comply?

You're right - it is confusing.

There is really no question w/r/t NPT. In addition to what Jasmin has written, under the NPT anything less than manufacture of a nuclear weapon is allowable for a non-nuclear weapons state (NNWS) party.

When the NPT was negotiated, the line for prohibited use of what was to be considered peaceful (allowable) nuclear behavior was anything up to manufacturing a nuclear weapon. Everything up to that was considered allowable by the treaty. There were debates at the time of negotiation (late 1960s) on where to metaphorical draw the line. That the line was drawn so far to the right (toward having a bomb) is largely an artifact of the NNWS that wanted and were technically able to pursue peaceful nuclear energy at the time, e.g., West Germany and Sweden.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) formed in 1974, on US initiative. The NPT is not formally tied to the NSG. The NSG was a response to India’s “Smiling Buddha” nuclear weapon test – that’s the NSC line … originally. It changed last month when the NSC voted to allow the US-India deal. The NSC is currently considering enrichment and reprocessing restraints too. All states party to the NPT are not automatically members of the NSG. The NSG is by-invitation-only. (Not unlike the Australia Group.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying