What are the implications of the US nuclear deal with India?

[russ_watters]

And here's an extract from state acknowledging the need to change the law to allow the deal to go through.

Ok, but the specifics are important here - without them, it is impossible to evaluate the magnitude of the changes required or if they are a good idea. And without that, it is toug to answer your question.

btw The USA will also need to breech it's agreements with the NPG to make the deal happen.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm" is the text of the NPT. It appears to me to say that supplying nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes is ok as long as there is international oversight:

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.

3. The safeguards required by this article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

 

[Art]

If I'm not mistaken, or unless things have changed recently, some of India's civilian reactors are open to IAEA access despite India being a non-signatory.

This simply means they get expert help from the world community in areas like safety. It is totally meaningless with regard to stemming the production of nuclear weapons

And further, I believe that India is the only country - not the US, or Russia, or UK or anyone else, except perhaps for China - that has a "no first use" policy written into law.

Iran has gone further and passed a law making it illegal to develop or produce nuclear weapons but it hasn't changed attitudes towards them.

 

[Art]

Ok, but the specifics are important here - without them, it is impossible to evaluate the magnitude of the changes required or if they are a good idea. And without that, it is toug to answer your question.

It's simple really. It is currently illegal under US law to provide India with nuclear materials or expertise. Bush wants to change this to make it legal. He argues it will give the US an ally in an important geographical location, opponents argue it is rewarding bad behaviour and invites charges of double standards. Will congress stop him?

I think you are looking for complications that don't exist. I doubt the ease or complexity of rewriting legislation will be the deciding factor.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm" is the text of the NPT. It appears to me to say that supplying nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes is ok as long as there is international oversight:

I actually referred to the NPG not the NPT but in any case it is my understanding that non-signatories of the NPT are not supposed to receive any nuclear material or technical help.

It also seems unlikely Bush will garner support for the exemption he is seeking from the NSG with some critics believing that this deal will destroy decades of work in tightening up nuclear exports and simply open the flood gates for the NWS to sell their expertise to the highest bidders

 

[Gokul43201]

Iran has gone further and passed a law making it illegal to develop or produce nuclear weapons but it hasn't changed attitudes towards them.

That's because Iran has been shown to have taken part in nuclear weapons technology exchange with Pakistan and North Korea. They violated their own "law" banning nuclear weapons development. India has never violated it's 'no first use' policy. Hence the difference in attitude.

Are you seriously comparing India with Iran ?

 

[Art]

That's because Iran has been shown to have taken part in nuclear weapons technology exchange with Pakistan and North Korea. They violated their own "law" banning nuclear weapons development. India has never violated it's 'no first use' policy. Hence the difference in attitude.

Two points; first there is zero evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and secondly the law was only passed a couple of months ago.

Are you seriously comparing India with Iran ?

Such a comparison would be unfair on Iran. Iran has never attacked it's neighbours whereas India has conducted aggressive wars several times in the recent past,

 

[Gokul43201]

Two points; first there is zero evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program...

I never claimed there was, but there's evidence they had one despite claims to the contrary.http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan-iran.htm

...and secondly the law was only passed a couple of months ago.

That's also why no attitudes have changed. You need to show (over a period of time) that you can be trusted, before people/countries will change their attitudes. The extremist Iranian leadership, however, is woefully lacking in credibility. It will take either a revolution or a really long time to change attitudes.

Such a comparison would be unfair on Iran. (1)Iran has never attacked it's neighbours whereas (2)India has conducted aggressive wars several times in the recent past,

Cleverly worded, but (1)=apples, (2)=oranges.