Nuclear South Asia: Iran fires a shot at India

May 4, 2009

Iran looks like it will come out swinging at a global conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opening in New York on Monday, and in the process take a swipe at Israel as well as India.

And that is a bit of a shift, for India and Iran have ties going back into history, but which have in recent years come under pressure and play in the tangled relationship between India and Pakistan.

Iran, according to this Reuters story, has submitted papers to the NPT conference accusing the United States of violating the treaty by developing new nuclear weapons and providing nuclear aid to Israel and India. The target is clearly Washington and according to the story an attempt by Tehran to deflect attention from its own nuclear programme.

But by turning the spotlight on India, is it risking turning off an old friend, a civilisational ally?

India and the United States sealed a deal under which Washington would help India expand its civilian nuclear energy programme, even though New Dehi has refused to sign the NPT or renounce its nuclear weapons. New Delhi has long argued that the NPT was discriminatory allowing the five countries – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia – which are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear weapons while prohibiting others from doing do so.

Iran is questioning that deal as did Pakistan, which sought a similar pact from Washington  to boost its nuclear programme to meet its energy requirements. But the Bush administration which pushed the deal despite reservations in the U.S. Congress and outside from non-proliferation experts said there was a difference between India and Pakistan.

Indeed, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are back in focus as President Asif Ali Zardari heads to Washington for meetings with U.S. President Barack Obama this week just as the military continues to fight the Taliban 60 miles from Islamabad.

The New York Times said in a report ahead of the meeting that the spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that its weapons are safe.  The two sides may take up the issue this week, it said.

Will India crop up again in those discussions, especially when America tries to lean on Islamabad for more transparency of its nuclear weapons? The Pakistani nuclear programme,  like its huge conventional military force, is geared toward meeting the threat it feels from India. So is Islamabad going to join the Iranians and  take up the India-U.S. nuclear deal to counter the pressure on its programme?

Or is Washington in no mood now to listen to the Pakistani army’s deepest fears – the rise of a nuclear-armed India with with new economic heft?

[File photo of Indian rocket launch to put satellite in space]

68 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

NY TIMES
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hinting at in testimony 10 days ago before the House Appropriations Committee. Pakistan’s weapons, she noted, “are widely dispersed in the country.”

“There’s not a central location, as you know,” she added. “They’ve adopted a policy of dispersing their nuclear weapons and facilities.” She went on to describe a potential situation in which a confrontation with India could prompt a Pakistani response, though she did not go as far as saying that such a response could include moving weapons toward India — which American officials believed happened in 2002. Other experts note that even as Pakistan faces instability, it is producing more plutonium for new weapons, and building more production reactors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/world/ asia/04nuke.html?_r=1&hp

Iran recently has improved its ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has hosted President Ahmedinejad for Talks in Riyadh. Iran is willing to go ahead with Gas pipelines projects with Pakistan for economic interests. The geo-political scenario is evolving and we could see some strain in Indo-Iranian ties. Also, while President Obama clearly stated last week that he is sure about the safety of Pakistani nuclear weapons. But again we see fear mongering and scares among US officials regarding Pakistani weapons. Amid all this, Pakistani nuclear weapons are dispersed across the country, with more prodcution going on. In short, the US will keep pressuring Iran on its nuclear weapons and keep creating scare mongering regarding Pakistan nuclear weapons.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive

With “old friends” like Iran who need enemies…..

Posted by drshakshuka | Report as abusive

the NPT is one mother of all hypocritical documents ever created. although i understand iran’s concern about the deals being made with india and israel,i would think that pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is more of a threat to iran second to israel. although both are muslim countries and have some cultural ties, pakistan is a sunni state. an extremist sunni state, who hate the majortiy shia iran. everyone knows the atrocities commited against the shias in pakistan. if the taliban ends up taking over pakistan, and its nukes, iran would be the first target of those nukes, over india, israel, and the U.S. India and iran have always had close ties and are natural allies.hopefully this does not cause a break down in those ties, although israel would love to see that happen.

Posted by hassan | Report as abusive

what are the chances of europe coming to its senses and buying iran’s gas, cutting india out of the pattern?

iran could tell india to go fly a kite.

the israeli americans are dead set against india using iran gas, and the indians seem to be willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces, in service of the israeli american empire… but it would make sense if europe let the israel/israeli american/indian alliance founder on its own stupidity, buy iran’s gas, and be done with it.

pakistan is gonna be left in the lurch, at least until the israeli american empire expires, as far as iranian gas is concerned… turkmenistan gas, too, come to think of it.

i guess it just depends on whether or not europe is as subservient to israel as america is.

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

i guess the only solution to this problem is (1) regime change in iran and dismemberment of iran, and (2) elimination of pakistan’s nukes and dismemberment of pakistan… as per the PNAC plan.

then everything will be fine.

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

“…everything will be fine…”

…assuming, of course, that pakistanis have too much respect for humanity to employ their samson option.

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

With Iran nearing its goal of nuclear weapons and missile development, a lot of gloomy things appear in the horizon. I read in “Charlie Wilson’s war,” that Israel has a huge presence inside Iran. In fact the Iran-contra affair that brought the Reagan administration under Congress flak was staged by Israel-Iran connection, according to the book.

Israel might use its tentacles inside Iran to prop up the Shia-Sunni animosity. With Nukes on either side, the world might face a show down.

Or Iran might try to hit Israel to forge an Islamic alliance that postpones the Shia-Sunni conflict to a latter time.

One of the above two is a possibility in the near future.
The Islamic alliance might seek China’s help. With China’s energy needs sky rocketing, China might try to move into the region fast.

Iran-India gas pipe line via Pakistan is not practical. There is a lot of unpredictability involved.

I do feel that the NPT is unfair. There is no way it can be revisited with the UNSC permanent members also being the exclusive nuclear club members. Who is to bell that cat?

For Pakistan to dismantle its nukes, India has to dismantle its nukes. For that to happen, China has to do the same. So three countries have to come forward to remove nukes from the region. With Iran coming into the picture, Israel will also be expected to remove its nukes. So that makes it five countries.

This is a pipe dream. Instead, some kind of treaty has to come into the fore in order to keep the nukes simply serve as a deterrent.

“With Iran nearing its goal of nuclear weapons and missile development…”

would you like to provide evidence of iran’s nuke weapons program?

would you like to explain why, if you have such evidence, you are unable to give that evidence to the UN inspectors?

would you like to explain why the UN inspectors have been unable to confirm iran’s nuke weapons program?

would you like to explain why we should believe the same lies from the same people who lied us into the iraq war?

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

Wadosy writes:

“would you like to provide evidence of iran’s nuke weapons program?”

Here are a couple of links:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007  /04/exclusive_iran_.html

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-N ews/Nuclear-Weapon-From-Iran-Within-A-Ye ar-Expert-Says-Country-Will-Have-Enough- Uranium-For-Warhead/Article/200901415211 260

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/2 3/top_stories/bullet_points/doc49f03b6dd d2e4727598222.txt

“would you like to explain why, if you have such evidence, you are unable to give that evidence to the UN inspectors?”

That is easy. You can set up fake facilities and mislead everyone. People are a lot smarter than one assumes. You can walk the inspectors through facilities known to them and tracked by them, while you can set up new, yet unknown facilities in other locations under a facade of fruit factory or ketchup factory. Remaining an isolated country helps a lot in this regard. No one has any access. Satellites help only to some extent. You can also have your stuff developed in another country entirely that no one is suspecting. A lot of things can be done now-a-days. Ask Pakistan and they can help you out.

“would you like to explain why the UN inspectors have been unable to confirm iran’s nuke weapons program?”

See the above.

“would you like to explain why we should believe the same lies from the same people who lied us into the iraq war?”

I do not know about you. You can believe or disbelieve anything you want. It is up to the others what they want to believe.

One has to keep in mind that India built its nukes after it had no options. For years it had stated we have the capability to do so but will not build one as there is no need. Once China (violations of International laws) decided to help Pakistan get the M11 missiles and the nuke tech India had no options but to build it to prove it has it too. The only way to prove this to Pakistan/China was to test it a few times so that Pakistan does not get any false ideas that idea is bluffing and is weak. In a way this creates a natural deterrence as Pakistan will think twice before threatening India with its nukes.
One also has to understand India has been working on nuclear technology for power resources for decades and has been very successful with it.
USA is not giving India nuclear bomb tech or missiles. India already has that on it’s own. What US is doing is giving India more modern and safer means to produce nuclear powered energy for “CIVILIAN USE” that India needs badly in a fast growing economy.

A nation like Iran has no reason to develop nuclear
Tech as they have plenty of oil. There sole purpose is to build a bomb. No nation should aid another in that process,Its against International Laws which both Pakistan and China have broken. As such US cannot help Iran.

US helping India is also a business plan. So far France and Russia have a monopoly on supplying reactors to India now US can also can compete in this lucrative multi-Billion dollar market.

Posted by Dr Jain | Report as abusive

mauryan, you do make some good points although yur first statement of iran trying to obtain a nuclear weapon is false. there is no solid proof that iran wants a nuclear weapon, and infact there is a fatwa in iran that prohibits having any weapons that can cause massive civilian casualties. we all know how muslims feel about their fatwas. now i don’t know if i would say there is a strong israeli prescece inside iran, but iran and israel were allies once, even during the iran-iraq war, israel tried to get the U.S to support iran, so the so called Hatred between the two is a little over hyped by the media and the trash talking carried out by leaders of both countries.I do agree that israel and US will try and exploit the shia-sunni divide and use that to start a major war against iran on one side and the arab nations along with pakistan on the other. the arabs would never align with the iranians to forge a unified muslim front, their resentment for the shias and iran run deeper then hatred for the west. in the middle you would have india, iraq, and afghanistan caught in the middle and be foreced to choose sides. I always admired india for taking non-biased stances in world affairs. they always chose to moderatly back the palestinians without insulting the israelis and opposed the invasion of iraq and always had close ties with iran. the actions of the arabs,U.S,pakistan, israel, vs. iran has potential to start a world war 3, with countries like china, india, russia, iraq, afghanitan, being impacted greatly and maybe even forced to choose sides to protect itself.

Posted by hassan | Report as abusive

“Will India crop up again in those discussions, especially when America tries to lean on Islamabad for more transparency of its nuclear weapons? The Pakistani nuclear programme, like its huge conventional military force, is geared toward meeting the threat it feels from India. So is Islamabad going to join the Iranians and take up the India-U.S. nuclear deal to counter the pressure on its programme?”

I strongly believe that India should sign the CTBT. We know we have the needed capability to defend ourselves. We have numerical simulation capability to optimize the bombs. That is good enough. We have tremendous energy needs and our hydro-electric power and other alternative power resources are not adequate to meet those needs. We need to generate electrical energy by safe nuclear means in order to keep up with the increasing power demands.

Seen from the perspective of Iran/Pakistan, the Indo-US nuke deal will seem unfair. But there are a lot of unfair things in the nuclear history. I do not understand how the first five nations got the exclusive privilege that others are denied. Also the US was fully aware of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb development. Their people were caught in the US trying to by the Kryton switches and specialized steel. Congress was going to cut off all aid to Pakistan. However, the war with the Soviets in Afghanistan was at its peak and maximum funding was needed (300 million dollars from the US and a matching amount from the Saudis). Some US politicians did not want that project derailed at any cost and worked round the clock to defeat the motion in the Congress. Later on the Pressler amendment was imposed on Pakistan under Bush Sr. However, by that time, Pakistan had cleared past the development stage and had the bomb ready. So Iranians do not understand why Pakistan was allowed to build the bomb and they are not. And Saddam Hussein never understood that either. He was an American ally at that time. A lot of issues that seem unfair are decided based on immediate geo-political needs. So things slip through as a result. However, India’s nuclear power need is genuine. And I am glad they have won that without signing the CTBT or NPT. The US has not signed the CTBT either.

In the long run, I believe that all countries must do the right thing – global nuclear disarmament.

Hassan,

I do not have solid proof of an Iranian nuclear bomb. I do not have a similar proof for Israel either. But I have read here and there that Israel has the bombs and the missiles to deliver them.

Iran might want to get the bomb in order to get political leverage. North Korea is doing the same. They can threaten to use the bombs if their demands are not met. This keeps the world on the edge.

In the case of Iran, it might use the bomb as a leverage against Sunni Muslims. So Shia Muslims might feel protected as Iran would boldly support Shia movements in other countries. Hezbollah and Hamas might become even bolder with Iranian nukes backing them. Iran might warn Israel to back off. To them destruction of Israel is a cause for celebration. Pakistan is doing the same with India – Do what we say or we have our fingers on the nuclear button. I can see a lot of boldness in the activities of LeT, HuJ etc after Pakistan demonstrated its bombs. The IA hijack happened right in front of the noses of the BJP rulers of India at around the same time period when the two countries demonstrated their nukes. Indian government could do nothing because they knew any armed assault will trigger a nuclear war. Musharraf made the tactical move on Kargil with an assured belief that if the situation got out of control, nukes would be used.

So nukes seem to embolden some countries that have historical hatred for other people. What I am worried about is a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran or Pakistan based on how things develop. If they feel that they are really threatened by two Islamic nations coming up with nukes, and delivery systems, they could strike. And it can happen whether Iran really has the bombs or not.

If Israel feels that it is losing support from the US and its allies for any reason, the worst thing can happen. They have their tentacles way deep in the region. India has so far kept them at arm’s length. Alliances are good, but we will not go to bed with any of them – Israel or US. And China is watching all this with interest as well. A weakened US should be a worry for many.

Iran has every right to be angry with India, because India voted at the IAEA to send Iran’s file to the UN Security Council as part of India’s deal with the US. India was bribed into voting against Iran.

Posted by hass | Report as abusive

The problem lies with the hypocrisy of the original P-5. They are legally obliged to disarm under the NPT. Instead they used the NPT to freeze their status as the only NWS until India gatecrashed into the club.

The US and the NSG should make it amply clear that the Indo-US deal is a ONE TIME exception, that takes into account India’s size, technological prowess, economy, and defense and security needs.

No Pakistan, no Israel (Israel does not want a civilian program anyway), and no North Korea!

That’s the only way out of this impasse now.

Posted by SJD | Report as abusive

When it comes to India and Iran(Persia), who cares? Persian and India are almost like long term cousins and very good friends as they share a long history of trade and diplomatic ties for hundreds of years. Persia, despite its Islamic Revolution, its people are educated, intelligent, sublime, mature in their response, honest, hospitable and generally very moderate, gentle and “nice” to all peoples, regardless of their religion. their people cheer at all sporting events, for both sides, very sportsman like unlike the U.S. and Pakistan.

Persia is a glorious civilization, despite its boy lover mullahs, who beat women to hide their behind the door gender preference.

I don’t care for the guys sitting on the pillows, waving a book, while they horde the billions of oil dollar$. I stand with the Iranian people.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive

Every Sovereign country has a right to have Nuke Weapons. I do not see the point of American Crib in this matter.Trying to drive this wedge between India & Iran is a futile exercise.The world would be a very lovely place if the US decides to pack its bag from Asia & Leave everyone for themselves. Sensible people will use their brains & solve the Afghan/Pakistan/Iran/Indian issues.

Posted by vijay | Report as abusive

Mauryan:
“What I am worried about is a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran or Pakistan based on how things develop. If they feel that they are really threatened by two Islamic nations coming up with nukes, and delivery systems, they could strike.”

An Israeli strike on Pakistan would serve no purpose, infact it would not make any sense. Israel will not gain anything, Pakistan has passed that stage where its nuclear facilities could be bombed, Pakistan already has the nukes. Also, Pakistani weapons are dispersed, even if israel hits a location or two, Pakistani nukes will be safe and Israel knows it could face retaliation. Infact during the 80s back than Israel might have tries several times very seriously to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities, but despite coming very close it had to abort for whatever reason. However I am not sure if israel could still go ahead and attack Iranian facilities if it really feels Iran has got very close to build the bomb.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive

Umair,

I agree with you that Pakistan has gone to an advanced stage and it can be amongst the elite club of nations with secure nuclear weapons. From here on your country must act responsibly and make sure that nuclear proliferation is not encouraged. I guess things were different in late 1990s where an Islamic alliance seemed to develop with Pakistan driving it. But things have changed now and it would be better for Pakistan to use its nukes as a deterrent against any nation. India and China recognize each other’s strengths now and military confrontation has literally ceased between them. I cannot confirm if China is encouraging secession in North Eastern India or not. They might and India can’t do anything about it, other than keep the fire under control. Pakistan should not try to ape China because China is also an economic giant. It can afford to run many operations at the same time, just like the US does and nothing much will dent its economy. Pakistan should realize that its efforts to bleed India have only resulted in its own economy being drained out. It would be good if India and Pakistan can agree to cease all attrition, make a pact and move in their own directions, with cross border trade and cultural exchanges. India recognizes Pakistan as a nuclear power and I hope Pakistan reciprocates the same. It is time to move on. India so far has had very good relations with Iran and their nukes will not be a bother for us. I’d let the Israelis worry about it. I’d like the India-Pakistan relationship and understanding to be at the same level as India-Iran relations. There is a lot of money to be made and we are just wasting it all away by living in the past.

@Umair,

You guys can keep your nukes, so long as you remain responsible to your neighbours and the international community and speak with a coherent voice. India has no intention of attacking Pakistan for any unprovoked reason and never will for any unprovoked reason.

It is a positive development to finally see the PA, at least on a small front, engaging some of the Taliban. It was encouraging today that I saw Pakistani Men protesting the Taliban. When I see citizens taking true repsonsiblity in this manner, it makes believe that Pakistanis will have their own country one day, rather than an Army having a country.

Stability and security is key for all the South Asian countries to come out of this recession, especially Pakistan. If Pakistan can cease its pre-occupation with wasting billions on defense to keeping parity with India, it can become a stable place where people would want to invest with confidence. But it has a long way to go yet.

Providing a modern English education to more people would also provide a more productive and educated population, which would not turn towards extremism.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive

Dr. Jain
you are completely wrong in thinking that iran doesn’t need nuclear technology just because it has oil. do you in your right mind think that the oil last forever? the U.S decided to cooperate with india on its nuclear program after they saw that the indians were not going to stop obtaining nuclear technology so they figured they might as well cooperate with them. iran has no need for a nuclear weapon. the U.S has plenty of oil and gas reserves itself, yet has plenty of nuclear power plants and thousands of nuclear weapons. let’s not forget that the U.S is the only country in the world that has actually used atomic weapons. let’s also not forget that israel itself has a stock pile of nuclear weapons which no one wants to talk about. you want to talk about international laws being broke, look at how many laws the U.S has broken, look at the laws that israel breaks on a daily basis. India was right in not backing down on its nuclear program and at the end of the day, they accomplished their goal. iran, for all the sanctions that have been placed on it is still enriching uranium. supposedly the “savage” and “backward nation like iran is still able to laucnh satellelites and work on nuclear technology, it is a great testament to the iranian nation. like the prime minister of india told bush ” Iran and India are two nations friendly to each other.both have great culture, pride, and history that dates back thousands of years, we don’t need anyone, including the U.S, to tell us what to do”.

Posted by hassan | Report as abusive

Hassan,

We Indians have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We have had good relations with them. In fact India has very good relationship with almost all Middle Eastern countries. I do not see a problem with Iran having its nukes. But there is a requirement. Once a country achieves the nuclear bomb capability, responsibility comes automatically. The country’s leaders should never mention anything about dropping the nukes on others to settle any issue. The temptation to use the nukes must be avoided. And the country should pledge itself strictly towards non-proliferation. Nukes are not meant for offense, but for defense when all options are exhausted. If Iran can do that, they are most welcome to have their nukes.

Mauryan, you make an interesting comment. For Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear programme, India has to end its programme. India won’t do it, as you point out, until the Chinese do it.
But how will the Chinese do it, so long as the United States is armed to the teeth with these weapons ?

So does the road to Pakistani nuclear disarmament, which is the world’s immediate concern at the moment, run through Washington ?

Posted by Sanjeev Miglani | Report as abusive

Sanjeev writes: “So does the road to Pakistani nuclear disarmament, which is the world’s immediate concern at the moment, run through Washington ?”

The world has to be fair. The US hurried up with the Manhattan project to get ahead of the Nazis. Then the Russians caught up with them. Then the US allowed secrets to be shared with UK and France. Russians allowed the Chinese to get the designs and all of them became members of an elite nuclear club. On top of that, they became UNSC permanent members. How can this be allowed?

So no one has any rights to tell North Korea or Pakistan or Iran that they cannot have the nukes if we are fair. What matters is how responsible a country is after achieving the nuclear capability.

If we have to ask any country to get rid off its nukes, due to a high potential for emotion based misuse, that reason is applicable to any nation including the US. I have heard Americans saying “Nuke the SOBs” after 9/11.

I think the world is at a stage for nuclear disarmament. Obama has already talked about it. As a true leader, I hope he initiates the steps. I’d prefer all countries to give up their nuclear weapons. Obama probably would have taken it as a top priority, but for the economic crisis and the half baked war on terrorism when he took over.
The big fellows have to start the proceedings. Small players will follow. No one wants to be a pariah of the world.

Mauryan argues that iran could be hiding its nuke weapons program from inspectors, presumably because israel was successful in hiding its nuke weapons project from kennedy.

kennedy was shot just a few months after he sent ben gurion that nasty letter insisting on rigid inspections of dimona, and the lesson must have sunk in pretty good, because LBJ subsequently turned a blind eye to israel’s nuke program.

of course, if you have the evidence, Mauryan, you could present that evidence to the inspectors and the inspectors could then bust iran’s chops… too bad there’s just not any real evidence, isnt it?

too bad we’re supposed to believe another cock and bull story fabricated by the same people who fabricated the stories about iraq’s WMDs.

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

happy Sinco de mayo everybody!

I think Iran is well on its way to the bomb. There is no stopping to it an the Russians will make sure that they get it. The problem is with the islamic establishment that governs that country. Neither US or Russia want to see that in the near future. Both Iran and Pakistan have huge armies but they have no conventional projection capabilities so these forces remain largely defensive policy instruments. These countries aren’t big players in the global scheme of things. Both Russia and US would like to see iran free up its energy reserves into the global economy but this is impossible under the current political system. Once iranians get the bomb and are able to put it in orbit (thus anywhere on the planet) they will chill out a bit. Perhaps they can scale down their conventional forces if they don’t feel threatened regionally. The crux remains, what to do with the political establishment of Iran, how to liberalize its civil society and develop its economy and who (Russia or US) will be the beneficiary of this development.
Pakistan on the other hand cannot scale down its conventional military because they have no natural resources or industrial output capability (as of yet) to secure strong regional alliances for this to be possible. So it breaks down like this:
US allies: India, Pakistan(water uphill),Afganistan(maybe) Israel and Iraq, (maybe Saudi Arabia) versus;
Russian Allies: Iran, Kazakhstan (+other central asian principalities) Azerbajan, (etc)
Since there is no stopping to the prolifiration of nukes, the solution lies in creating conventional forces and economic alliences to create regional stability in south asia.
Endgame: energy prolifiration and independance. whovever can control the flow of energy out of the region wins in the long run in fields of economic development.
Monkey wrench: China – one thing that Russia and US have in common is their concern for the rising influence of China in the world via naval power, nuclear arms and economic levereage. The only thing that china doesn’t have is energy for the forseeable future. So Russia and US will ally against China to block their efforts at becoming a superpower. (US to prevent another cold war and Russia not to be left behind.
Global Warming: once the arctic ocean ice melts both Russia and US will exploit more energy from the basin than Saudi Arabia ever had in their territory.
THE BIG PROBLEM(s) How do you scale down the militaries of Iran and Pakistan and stabilize their political systems to achieve long lasting, economically viable development?????
ANSWER: By reducing the influence on indiginous-religious mechanisms which usurp power over majority rule.
Say what you will about the Americans but know this: they will never go away from these objectives because they see them as viable. This is a long term strategy and clearly Russians are on board. There is nothing that scares these two countries more that the rise of China and they will do anything to contain it. Expect a protracted south asia strategy to change Iran and Pakistan from defensively minded nations to powers which project their influence. Culture (social norms) and political systems are only temporary obstacles. Pragmatism and capitalism always win over ingrained fear.

si? no?

Posted by N-NW | Report as abusive

The first nuke Iran gets will be the last.

Once Afganistan and Iraq are stable (or just Iraq), America will be getting ready for Iran.

IF Iran gets a nuclear bomb, the UN will be exposed as irrelevent. It will prove that negotiation just gave Tehran the time to finish their program. Something the UN will never recover from.

And if the US takes action against Iran, Russia and China will not back Iran out. Iran is only a customer for weapons. Nobody is going to start WW3 over them.

I’d say the Persian War will be on by 2011 at the latest. Wonder if they will last longer then Iraq did? Even a month would be a record.

Posted by John Smith | Report as abusive

The Pakistani Military have been using the “Perceived Indian Threat” to justify their large military expenditures and to blame India for their failed economy.

So far Pakistan has been the agressor in attacking India starting each war and each time getting a proper trashing from India!
India doesn’t need nukes to deal with Pakistan!
And Pakistan can never use nukes against India!
If ever Pakistan resort to use nukes against India, that will be the last fight Pakistan would ever launch before Pakistan is turned into a wasteland……….
India needs to have its nuclear deterrent to discourage an other Chinese military adventurism, like the one that was launched as a sneak attack against India in 1962 when China captured and still holds a large chunk of disputed Indian territories. India is the only Asian nation capable to create a balance of power with China……….
Pakistan is a perpetual source of terrorist attacks and other nuisance but its not something India can not handle………..The recent Mumbai attack has exposed Pakistan to the world as a sponsor of terrorism….

The main concern today, is due to the instability of Pakistani Government and the Pakistani ISI’s close links with the extremists, what if the nukes end up in the extreemists hands?

Posted by Gandhi | Report as abusive

Sanjeev,

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/In diaOrigin.html

Origin of India’s Nuclear Weapon Program

………..India’s indigenous efforts in nuclear science and technology were established remarkably early. The first step was taken by Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha in March 1944 when he submitted a proposal to the Sir Dorab Tata Trust (established in honor of Bhabha’s own uncle, Sir Dorab Tata) to found a nuclear research institute, over three years before independence and a year before the first nuclear weapon test. This led to the creation of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) on 19 December 1945 with Bhabha as its first Director. The new government of India passed the Atomic Energy Act, on 15 April 1948, leading to the establishment of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) not quite one year after independence. At that time Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru declared:

We must develop this atomic energy quite apart from war – indeed I think we must develop it for the purpose of using it for peaceful purposes. … Of course, if we are compelled as a nation to use it for other purposes, possibly no pious sentiments of any of us will stop the nation from using it that way.”

……………..Apsara, fueled by enriched uranium from the UK, went critical on 4 August 1957, becoming the first operating reactor in Asia outside of the Soviet Union (though only days ahead of Japan’s first reactor). Cirus achieved criticality at BARC on 10 July 1960………………………..

Sanjeev,

thus the technology was available since 1940s. Nehru, wise or otherwise, did not agree to make a bomb. Instead he went to UNO, repeatedly demanding to eliminate all existing weapons on the planet. US and Russia kept ignoring him.

So does the road to Pakistani nuclear disarmament, which is the world’s immediate concern at the moment, run through Washington ?

- Posted by Sanjeev Miglani

Im afraid so.

As India urged and demanded UNO, yes everyone should agree to disarm, as we can expect, US senate and comgress will not accept in itheir national interest. Indias defence is chinacentric, since china crossed himalays and occupied Arunachal Pradesh, in 1962..

N-NW writes: “So Russia and US will ally against China to block their efforts at becoming a superpower. (US to prevent another cold war and Russia not to be left behind.”

I think China is already a super power. It has both money and ICBMs. It has made an announcement to make destroyer ships. It has nuke submarines. It patrols the South China sea. Right now there is a stalemate with Russians and Americans. China is expanding its influence just like the US and USSR did. It is in Africa, South America already.

But China has mostly economic ties. They want the world to become the consumer for its products. It has tasted money. So it will not spread poverty like USSR did. It will be more like the British empire – convert the world as its consumer by colonizing. And its military will spread around to protect its business interests. The Americans and Russians will not like this development because of two reasons – they will have to share the world with the Chinese. Secondly, Chinese are not white. So far, for the past 500 years, white race has ruled the world. Now a different race is taking a share in that dominance. And that adjustment will be uncomfortable. So long as others played second fiddle, it was all right. But allowing a different race to share global dominance will take some maturity to develop. And China will flex its muscles to show off its new power status. This means a few wars here and there. But the US and Russia will never engage in direct conflict with China. They cannot afford to. If they did, they will lose more of their global dominance. Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, Taiwan, N Korea, Palestine, Somalia, Afghanistan, Spratly Islands etc are all future battle fields that will decide who gets to dominate.

dont you think china is wise enough to see the idiotic situation the world’s in?

dont you think chinese leaders remember caucasian benevolence demonstrated in the opium wars, which enslaved a large portion of the chinese population to narcotics in order to prop up british trade and the british empire?

dont you think the chinese would just as soon have skipped the oil age, but are forced to industrialize to defend themselves from more caucasian “benevolence”, this time manifesting as the israeli americans’ “benevolent global hegemony”?

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

want to comment of the moral sickness and hypocrisy displayed by the neocons’ “benevolent global hegemony”, the benevolence of which has killed a million people already… especially in view of the fact that the project is just getting started?

want to comment on the moral sickness of the neocons’ “benevolent global hegemony” when that benevolence will supposedly be enforced by “nuclear primacy”, which includes nuke first strikes on russia and china?

“the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal — if any at all.

.

from the council on foreign relations foreign affairs March/April 2006…

“the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal — if any at all.

At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.”

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22 nuclear+primacy%22+CFR%22first+strike%22 +russia+china&btnG=Search

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

John Smith,
spoken like a true american.”the first nuke iran gets will be their last” its that same cowboy mentality that has cost america its reputation and the lives of its soldiers and civilians. i bet you guys said the same thing before invading vietnam, then afghanista, and then iraq. which of these wars have u actually won? u went into vietnam to stop the spread if communisim and after a million dead vietnamese nd 50,000 dead u.s soldiers u left and communisim still came. u invaded afghanistan (which i agreed with) in an attempt to oust taliban and al-qaeda only to push them into pakistan and create a bigger problem for everyone else. u invaded to find WMDs only to find nothing, started secterian violence, and strengthen iran. and now they have voted to kick u guys out. nice job guys, excellent work. india and china along with nations like brazil, russia, south africa, turkey, etc are the new powers.they are not only economic power but military powers and they do no care what government are in place in other countries, they do not pretend to want to spread democracy while carrying out its own agendas.they do not believe in invading nations and spreading its rule by creating chaos. the era of the caucasian rule is over.get in line.

Posted by hassan | Report as abusive

If Iran ever becomes a nuclear power the United States will crush it militarily like a bug…but to what end?

Its clear that the American people have no taste to occupy another country on the same terms as we did/do in Iraq and Afghanistan…so this “miltary solution” over Iran’s nuke will be a nasty hit & run affair that will likely be a messy and bloody event that will do little more than set Iran back a few years and inflame and elevate the Islamic extremists inside Iran and elsewhere. But what other choice is there?

Posted by Steven | Report as abusive

Hassan,

Whether any one likes it or not, China is the next super power. It is going to get to dominate the world for the next 25 odd years at least. The danger with countries like China is that they have grown by despotic means. And such regimes can turn utterly ruthless. They prefer to keep countries backward as much as possible so that every country has no option but to do what they want. Countries like North Korea, Burma etc are examples of how the Chinese like to keep others. This is not possible of course because Western Europe, North America, Australia, Russia etc can survive without China. I hope China does not resort to military ventures to establish their dominance. They have learned the art of gaining dominance by economic means. So they are not going to let go of that. They depend on others for their prosperity. So they will have to limit their military incursions and increase the gap between themselves and others in economic terms. If they did that, then every country will have to stand in line to win their favors. This dependency is what the powers of today and yesterday will try to break. So China will dominate. But its dominance will not span over centuries as it did for the European powers. And Chinese have remained isolated for too long. They have limited knowledge of the outside world and do not have an infrastructure where they have experts trained on every nook and corner of the world. They do not have any system that questions the correctness of its leaders. This is very important. Their people do not have a right to choose their leaders. This is a very important thing in today’s world. They need to make some serious changes inside for them to be accepted as world leaders. If they fail to do that, then their dominance will be short lived and they will have to spend enormously to keep their dominance. It could end up like the USSR where no one liked their forced dominance and they had to spend a lot everywhere to keep their ideology thrust down everyone’s throat. But I do see a shift in the global dominance from colonial powers to China. Iran’s oil will be a valuable resource for China. So they will support Iran towards its nuclear weapon development. Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan are vital for them to gain control of Central Asia. If they get that, then their oil needs are met. They will be less dependent on the Middle East for oil. The US dominates the Middle East. But it is losing its hold in Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan, thereby losing its access to Central Asia. If the US has to neutralize Chinese incursion in this region, they will have to quickly warm up to Iran and allow them to have their bomb. Otherwise China will support them and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Iran must be thrilled to see China, Russia and the US trying to woo them. Iran unfortunately, does not have a smart leader. Ahmedinijad is an idiot. They need Rafsanjani in power now to sail through this time.

steven asks… “…what other choice is there?”

.
i spose america could buy oil and gas from the middle east, like china is doing, rather than attempting to steal it at gunpoint.

but maybe the fact that israeli america has to steal the oil is nothing more than an indication of the weakness of america… a moral and financial weakness that america is attempting to compensate for.

looks like a last desperate throw of the dice by a dying empire.

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

The U.S. isn’t going anywhere as a dominant power. Some may want it to but it won’t. It still has by a long shot the biggest economy in the world. Even if it is in a recession. It accounts for 50 percent of the world military spending. China may come to rival it, but it is still a long way from challenging the U.S. in the way the USSR did. Maybe in 20 years but not yet. China is also dependent on the vast U.S. market for much of its economic growth. U.S. power may diminish, and during Bush the U.S. image certainly did, but they still by far have the biggest stick and the biggest economy!!

Posted by will arrington | Report as abusive

Why do liberal progressive kooks have so many opinions that place blame on their own country, why?

India’s need for civilian nuclear energy had merit. India imports 70% of its oil and gas from the middle east. Unlike India, Iran already has one the largest reserves of oil and gas. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear energy is to make the next nuke bomb under the garb of its benign admissions.

Pakistan’s case is different, though understandable. There are many in Pakistan who wrongly believe their country is equal to India; hence the demand for similar treatment. Despite getting free access to nuke technology from China, Pakistan would like an acceptance by the US. It’s the ego than anything else really. I will not be surprised if the US dangles a carrot of granting the status of an official nuke power to Pakistan.

No other country in the world has as many stockpiles of nukes as those in the US. If the non-proliferation has to succeed, the US will have to demonstrate by dismantling its massive nuclear arsenal first.

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive

Mauryan,
i agree with many points that you make. i think china is a superpower already. it pretty much own the U.S. trust me, i live here and even americans know that we depend on china just as much as they depend on us. but the difference is we are broke and china isn’t. our military has been fighting wars now for the past 8 years and china has not. our reputation is tarnished and china’s is not.for example, china does alot of business with countries like sudan and somolia. they get alot of their oil from there.but they don’t tell those governments how to govern their country and care for their people. they could care less, why?? because it is none of their business. meanwhile the U.S and europe love trying to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it and if they don’t then they isolate them and eventually try to bomb them. the chinese people have traded having a democtactic government for economic prosperity.i love democracy and what it brings to people, but that does not mean it is meant for everyone. i thought it was a terrible idea to push democrady on pakistan. look at the outcome. the george W bush of pakistan, ziradari came to office. I think china is learning from the mistakes of the U.S an europe and will be better off.

Posted by Mauryan | Report as abusive

Wadosy,

You said, “i spose america could buy oil and gas from the middle east, like china is doing, rather than attempting to steal it at gunpoint.”

- China is not a benign nation as you imply. China is equally or more ruthless than the US in its pursuit of oil and gas from the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive

would you like to explain why american companies like GE were peddling reactors to iran in the days of the shah?

.
“The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1]

The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran’s nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2]”

Nuclear program of Iran wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pro gram_of_Iran

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

Nikhil says… “China is equally or more ruthless than the US in its pursuit of oil and gas from the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.”

.

how many people has china killed in the last few years in their pursuit of oil?

how many people has israeli america killed in their pursuit of oil?

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

Wadosy,

How many people has China killed in last few years in pursuit of oil?

- In thousands or in millions. I have a feeling that, in response, you are going to give me an exact number from some propoganda website. China is the wannabe empire and its nasty acts are not as publicized as those of the US.

During the decades of cold war, the US was a friend and an ally of many Islamic countries. They partied with the Yankee dollar and scorned at the godless Soviets. Times may have changed but the cycle of friend and foe has not. For many in Islamic countries, China may be the new friend. Soon, it’ll be China’s turn to be the new enemy; heck it already is!

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive

Nikhil says…”China is the wannabe empire and its nasty acts are not as publicized as those of the US.”

.
when, then, has a representative of the major chinese political faction published that faction’s ambition to achieve “benevolent global hegemony”, and has demonstrated that benevolence by going halfway round the world and causing the needless deaths of maybe a million people?

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

Wadosy,

Check out China in Sudan among other African countries. China has a history in Africa of supporting nasty dictators and brutal governments with arms and money in return for oil and gas. Many civilians have been killed. China is trying to enhance its status as an international political power, and increasing its ability to obtain access to significant natural resources.

The Chinese approach to foreign relations is officially termed “noninterference in domestic affairs.” But their actions say it otherwise. In fact, China has argued that attempts by foreign nations to discuss democracy and human rights violate the rights of a sovereign country. Many in Islamic countries complain that the US supports dictators for self interests and kill innocents. How is China any different?

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive

the israeli americans have to vilify the chinese so they can justify their nuclear first strike on china… just like this slow drumbeat of hostility against russia after putin doublecrossed the neocons by taking russian oil, gas and pipelines back from the israeli russian gangsters… especially in view of the fact that the israeli americans anticipated using russian oil while they tore up the middle east oil patch.

.
anyhow, it’s just too damn bad that the chinese own so many american dollars, and can pull the financial plug on america overnight, isnt it?

but no matter how desperately the neocons want to nuke the chinese, it’s gonna be kinda hard to explain how the chinese deserve to be nuked if they havent done anything other than their normal business: buying oil faster than israeli america can steal it…

so the neocons will have to do a false flag attack on america and blame china to justify a nuke first-strike on china.

…but then comes the question: why would china attack america in the first place? …have the chinese gone as soft in the head as the israeli americans, who believe they’re entitled to do nuke first-strikes their rivals?

and why would china attack america when it knows israeli america has enough nuke weapons to survive the chinese attack and, in retaliation, wipe out the chinese and the rest of the planet a dozen times over?

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

the history of the U.S supporting ruthless dictators and carrying out massive killings is no secret. from supporting people like pinochet in chile, to saddam hussain in iraq to even supporting the afghan fighters what now became al-qaeda and taliban. not to mention the continued support for extremist producing countries like sauida arabia, egypt, jordan, and support of the zionist in israel. china has not invaded any countries like the U.S has. china does not preach its policies on other countries nor does it go around telling other countries how to live.the chinese don’t pretend to be the “light of freedom and liberty” like the americans do.

Posted by hassan | Report as abusive

Wadosy,

I wonder where from you get your daily news. I believe from some propoganda website? You don’t seem to fathom the repurcussions of nuclear war and the fallout; needlessly talking about nuking someone like a brat who just laid hands on a pistol. Is that a wonder why everyone is worried with the nukes falling in the wrong hands of bearded pinheads?

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive

Hassan,

I’m not surprised by your comments. Islamists used to hate called the the godless and expansionist Soviets and stand by the US, their ally and friend. They wined and dined with the Americans while shooting the Soviets down. Please don’t tell me China is a benevolent power. It just tells us that you need some more reading than what is printed in local newspapers.

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/pos ts/3830728.shtml

“The People’s Republic of China is increasingly challenging Russia in the African arms trade, offering lower prices on weapons that, ironically, are often made in China with Russian technologies.
Chinese products are less expensive than Russian and Western systems. They are similar to the Russian systems that many African countries are familiar with, and they are also easy to maintain and easy to use in training.”

“Many countries in Africa are therefore switching allegiance to the People’s Republic of China for their weapons purchases. A typical example is Sudan. At a 2007 military parade, the Khartoum regime showcased its China-made T96 Main Battle Tanks and T92 wheeled armored vehicles.”

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&ar t=12103

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/in dex.php/t-543543.html

“China has been promoting arms-for-oil deals with Africa as the continent is becoming one of its major sources of oil.”

Chinese commies are buying oil and selling mayhem. Yes sure they are not selling democracy and liberty–how nice of them!

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

Many thanks for all the comments, but can we get this back on track pleaase ? This was a blogpost on the global nuclear architecture under pressure as it exists now and not on conspiracy theories behind the Mumbai blasts.

In fact, the story has moved a bit since I wrote that post. At the NPT meeting which began in New York this week, a U.S. official said that India, Pakistan and Israel must join the NPT, which she said remained a fundamental U.S. objective. How does that position square off with the India-U.S. bilateral civilian energy deal ? Or is it an aqttempt ultimately bring India into the fold ?
Here is the link : http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/ idUKTRE5445VQ20090505

Posted by Sanjeev Miglani | Report as abusive

We are also not discussing a possible military strike on Iran – that is clearly the subject of a separate post.
And likewise do not see the immediate relevance of Darfur and China’s role in it to the nuclear structure we are talking about here.

Posted by Sanjeev Miglani | Report as abusive

NPT is just a blanket for nuclear arms stability. It doesn’t matter how many members it has or if some members slip on in via the peaceful energy arc de triumph. What matters is that we all don’t nuke each other simultaneously, one warm, happy afternoon. Its not a slap in the face for Pakistan, or India or Israel to join the NPT because they already are de facto nuclear powers. Lets get real. U.S. can’t expect these nations to sign onto a dead treaty, and doesn’t, but some other framework must exist in the meantime(between last WW and the next major global conflict) to maintain peace and prolong peace for as long as possible. NPT is dead and global economic interdependence is the only thing that ties us together, preventing us from microwaving each other. Let G20 run the nukes. Let not an alternative economic bloc prolifirate nuclear technology.
If anything, the India-US nuclear deal is the PROTOTYPE PROLIFIRATION PROTOCOL for G20 or G20+ or whatever. Let the new treaty allow for monitored peaceful reactors, let Iran in, and control the delivery systems rather than the warheads themselves. Space Age Tech NPT.

Posted by N-NW | Report as abusive

World seem to have easily forgotten that it was US,UK,
France,EU in addition to Pakistan that armed,trained,
sheltered etc these very SAME militants to destablize
india via kashmir and punjab.The very name of India used
to irk US and its allies !

But the
very same culprits now have fallen in the grave that they
dug for india ! Long live India and the heck with yanks,
pakis,japs etc. Muslims to my mind are diehards.
I donot think they are going to give up; Yanks will have
to run away from Pak and Afghan with their pants down!
Believe me or not ; time will tell.

Asif Zardari will now kill a couple thousand militants
to get couple billion $s from this foolish nation that
is called “US”; it means each militant killed will cost
US$1m while life in Pakistan or life of a militant is
hardly worth $5; so Zardari is being clever by gunning
down one militant he will get $1m and after the first
2,000 miltants are killed in exchange for $2billion,
militant deaths will stop till US gives zardari further
$2bn and it will be unending cycle like that
It’s hightime for american public to wakeup and reprimand
their leaders

Posted by jjmk4546 | Report as abusive

Nikhil,

we Canadians know what India is going to do with the “new” civil nuclear technologies.same as what India did with Canadian supplied CANDU nuclear reactors ok

there are safer alternatives…

Posted by Montrealer | Report as abusive

With NPT designating only 5 countries—the UN permanent members (US, China, France, Great Britain, Russia)–that tested a nuclear device before 1967 as nuclear weapon states and other countries including India which have conducted nuclear explosions since 1967 not being able to be so in case they sign NPT, it makes no sense thta they can ask India to sign NPT.

Signing NPT means India becomes a non nuclear weapon state and China keeps its NUKES. Hmm… Well Pakistan is India-centric so will sign NPT in their own admission if India does, and India’s NUkes are China-centric and China not giving it up means India not signing the treaty. I am sure they must be addressing this someway. Modify, rewrite NPT or do whatever it takes but there is no other way than to ultimately accept India as the NWS.

This is the feeling from the following article.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India -may-come-under-pressure-from-US-to-sign -NPT/articleshow/4490055.cms

“”As former US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill said on Tuesday, “It’s not clear to me how they regard India’s nuclear weapons — as a destabilising factor in South Asia; as a fact of life to grudgingly tolerate or as a natural development from a close democratic collaborator and rising great power.”

“He added, “The US should treat India as a nuclear weapon state. Any American backsliding in that regard would produce a very strong negative reaction from New Delhi.”

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

Remove the cut-off year mentioned in NPT and provide all countries equal rights. Current treaty provides special status to 5 nations in this world. This is unfair hence India has not signed the treaty till now.

Posted by Devendra | Report as abusive

nikhl,
none of your comments have to do anything with what exactly this particula article is about. you are just wasting time venting about your personal issues and views. i also suggest learning the english language properly and carefully review the proper ways of writing a sentence. get over the soviet but kicking carried out by the mujahideen, a group of poor, rag tag people who sent the soviets back home running and eventually brought down your mythical empire.

Posted by hassan | Report as abusive

Iran and India will be honest friends forever .nothing can make change

Posted by sandeep | Report as abusive

Try the XgamesWorld.com for Iran’s nuclear ideology…

I just wanted to point to the developments at the nuclear conference which some see as the first breakthrough in 10 years. Delegates from the NPT’s 189 signatories agreed on an agenda for a major conference next year, where member states hope to adopt an action plan to overhaul the treaty.

The agenda includes a review of disarmament commitments made by the five recognised nuclear weapons states in 1995 and 2000. A movement forward then ? Reports from the conference suggest a change of tone from the Obama administration including the call to Israel to sign the NPT. Here is a story on the conference so far :http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCr isis/idUSN06281930

Posted by Sanjeev Miglani | Report as abusive

richard perle, in a private conversation with barack obama:

“there are a few hundred million people, mr president, that refuse to see the benefits of our plan…

“we will have to eliminate them, but since we’ve exceeded the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet by a factor of five or six, they would be eliminated anyway.

“in the meantime, someone has to decide who will live and who will die, and it’s only fitting that we, who have the power to destroy the planet many times over, are the ones who make that decision.

“in fact, i make the case that our achievements, including the development nuclear weapons, are proof of our superiority, and therefore our entitlement to make that decision.”

Posted by wadosy | Report as abusive

Nikhil, seems to accept whatever he likes, the rest of it he considers to be from “propaganda websites”.
The fact remains that man-kind will always find better and more efficient ways to kill each other. It doesn’t matter who has nukes and who doesn’t. Killing each other has been the favourite pastime for man and that’s not about to change. America has made the world a much more dangerous place in it’s quest to become the ultimate saviour. You don’t see other countries fretting about their national security the way they do. That’s because other countries don’t spread their armies around the world promoting war.

Posted by Ibrahim | Report as abusive

Well although I have an affection for the country, I believe that the US-India deal was a fundamental mistake. Like this case illustrates, it flies in the face of the NPT. India had no reason to develop a nuke – no other country in its region could was in the same league as India. China was always in a league of its own and was more of an excuse used by India to try to increase its position in the world through obtaining nukes.

Posted by JJ | Report as abusive