Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Indo-US Nuclear Pact to Enter Rough Seas in Washington

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Indo-US Nuclear Pact to Enter Rough Seas in Washington
    Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 20:56

More hot air.  Democrats attempting to stigmatize the administration; Republicans trying to distance themselves from George II in an election year, when they can't ride the coat tails of the incumbent.

The fact is, this is a monumental strategic move for the United States.  It is certainly the most far reaching diplomatic/strategic effort since the establishment of NATO.  A major, rising power along the sea lanes from the Middle East has decided to establish important ties with the United States in the region most vital to the interests of both countries.

For those numbskulls opining that a nuclear deal with India will "undermine the NPT," look around.  That train has already left the station.

For common adversaries along the littoral of the Indian Ocean and in the Persian Gulf, the conventional military prospects just got a lot more problematical for you. 

 

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 00:54
Saw this coming, the USA was already prepered to sell India some pretty sensative avionics. Makes complete sense from an US point of view.

They close ranks with their biggest competitor's (PRC),.. biggest competitor (india).
Helps secure the sea lanes to the persian gulf, aswell as around the subcontinent towards asia while also getting inbetween two growing PRC strong points in pakistan (base in Gwarder) and Burma.

How this effects Iran im not too sure.


Edited by Leonidas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 06:47
Doesn't matter, what is India going to do? Seems like some sort of safety net to try and catch China in. Certainly nothing the US is doing right now, quite interesting though, India has a Zaroastrian elite with a lot of political and economic sway, in the same way as America has a Jewish elite witht he same, I wonder if Iran will become India's Israel in the future

Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 08:44

Leonidas:

Interesting point you bring up.  Strategy is not only about physical geography.  India has one of the strongest bases for representative democratic government in Asia.  A better fit for the U.S.

China's best friends seem to be Pakistan, Iran (kinda-sorta), Sudan and Myanmar.  Those are all rather the opposite.  Not good PR down the road.

The Chinese elites may feel more comfortable with those types of regimes.  Less messy public opinion to worry about.

But, IMHO, if it came to blows between India and Pakistan, China would drop the Pakis like a hot rock.  Probably Burma as well. 

 

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 09:57
I am not sure of any straight out geographic benefit for now, that is since i dont know how this changes access to basing (even if it is really needed). I see this as a very effective counterweight with china more than anything, but i also suspect in the back of my mind, against islmaic extremist aswell.

pakistan is only stable and semi relaible while musharaf (sp?) is in power, it is a volatile and largely anti-american country. Outside of that there isnt much else in that south asia section to turn too which is a problem if thats where most of the wahabi's have set up shop.

The democracy angle works well for the PR, though i dont think it is ever a big must for the american government. Just makes it a big sell on the news, otherwise it would of been a wink wink nudge nudge affair.

The USA gets access to indian defence and nuke tech contracts, which has been a russian domian with the british and french picking up on the sides

As a trading partner they have something more important than democracy, a decent legal understanding of copyright and intellectual property. This is a very big business issue with the PRC .

...And it gets in the middle of all those PRC proxies. I agree with the Pakistan call, PRC is too pragmatic to actaully get involved. I think Pakistan is in the hardest position of them all.


Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 10:29

How can America go around making nuclear deals with India while at the same time asking Iran to stop developing the technology. It seems totally hypocritical, and a kind of reward for the countries that did not sign up to the NPT.

Although the China factor is there with all this manouvering, i also think there is a bit going on vis a vis the Russians(especially in light of their recent posturing).  An indication is the offer to supply F-16 and the F-18 jets to india amongst other defence eqpt.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 13:16

malizai:

International relations is (and always has been) about the self interests of states, or monarchies, or dynasties.  It is without doubt, the most hard boiled, cynical and ruthless of all political pursuits.  The word hypocrisy is not in the diplomatic vocabulary.

International agreements are adhered to (or not) as the interests of signatories, or of adjunct parties, are perceived to be affected.  If it is not perceived as in the interests of a party, agreements may not be joined or ratified.  There are mechanisms for signatories to leave treaties as well if that is in their interests.

Of course there will be criticism of U.S. policy in doing this agreement with India.  That is a risk one takes.  The more important long range issue is perceived to be adding a counterweight in the strategic Indian Ocean to possible future moves by China possibly in SE Asia or at the straits.  No, nothing has happened yet, but if you wait til it does, it is often too late.

Obviously, resulting economic ties that benefit both sides are a great advantage too.

 

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 13:45

India has one of the strongest bases for representative democratic government in Asia.  A better fit for the U.S.

Not like that has ever been an issue.

China's best friends seem to be Pakistan, Iran (kinda-sorta), Sudan and Myanmar.  Those are all rather the opposite.  Not good PR down the road.

And the US? Egypt, Saudi and an assortment of other despotisms and (quasi) dictatorships.

Apples and oranges.

Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 15:12
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

malizai:

International relations is (and always has been) about the self interests of states, or monarchies, or dynasties.  It is without doubt, the most hard boiled, cynical and ruthless of all political pursuits.  The word hypocrisy is not in the diplomatic vocabulary.

International agreements are adhered to (or not) as the interests of signatories, or of adjunct parties, are perceived to be affected.  If it is not perceived as in the interests of a party, agreements may not be joined or ratified.  There are mechanisms for signatories to leave treaties as well if that is in their interests.

Of course there will be criticism of U.S. policy in doing this agreement with India.  That is a risk one takes.  The more important long range issue is perceived to be adding a counterweight in the strategic Indian Ocean to possible future moves by China possibly in SE Asia or at the straits.  No, nothing has happened yet, but if you wait till it does, it is often too late.

Obviously, resulting economic ties that benefit both sides are a great advantage too.

Every word of what u say is true, but the "diplomatic vocabulary" is in reality Lies that r forced down our throats to further unethical policies of our govts, its purpose to suppress our humanity and numb our senses, which has been achieved to a large degree. Fact of the matter is that in the 21st century the "NEW WORLD ORDER" is not accepted as the only form of doing things. Although it is the profane reality.

Just like fair trade is better than aid. I have the good fortune to use the language well with in its designs, rather than having to adapt it to my designs. So i can get away with using words like hypocrisy.  I don't need to conjure up terms like collateral damage, precision or smart bombing.

 



Edited by malizai_
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 15:37

The profane reality still has the upper hand, and we ignore it at our peril.

I saw some news program on one of the international agreements; one that France was pushing for.  A retired diplomat (British IIRC) said that the French aren't terribly international unless France's interests are at stake.



Edited by pikeshot1600
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 17:04
Originally posted by malizai_

How can America go around making nuclear deals with India while at the same time asking Iran to stop developing the technology. It seems totally hypocritical, and a kind of reward for the countries that did not sign up to the NPT.

Although the China factor is there with all this manouvering, i also think there is a bit going on vis a vis the Russians(especially in light of their recent posturing).  An indication is the offer to supply F-16 and the F-18 jets to india amongst other defence eqpt.



I't simple, we're alot less likely to drop it on someone's head. We've said on numerous occasions that we won't use the nukes first.

Besides, we need power and need to cut back on CO2 emmisions, its a quick way of doing it (ok it's harmful in other ways, but people havnt made films about nuclear waste as they've done with global warming).
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 17:09
If India wants improved civillian nuke technology, its the Canadians they should be talking too, as they have about the best civilian program out there and are already in the business of helping countries (especialy ex-warsaw -act types) improve or replace their existing program.
The Yanks havn't build a new reactor in quite a while me AFAIK.
Though i concede having US approval would make it easier for India and Canada to make arrangements in that department.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
  Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 17:29
Originally posted by malizai_

It seems totally hypocritical, and a kind of reward for the countries that did not sign up to the NPT.

It may not be hypocritical in some peoples view. Iran has a hostile attitude toward Israel. India does not. Indias relative democracy and religious tolerance are nice characteristics, but they are many countries that we support that dont share that trait. In realty people in charge in the US know that Irans Nuke program cannot be stopped they have the know-how and material internally in Iran. The idea is to delay it until a different kind of government is in place.

 

Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 19:25

Originally posted by malizai_

How can America go around making nuclear deals with India while at the same time asking Iran to stop developing the technology. It seems totally hypocritical, and a kind of reward for the countries that did not sign up to the NPT.

It is totally hypocritical, but people like Pikeshot, President Bush, other realistic people and I just don't care.  The NPT is a scrap of paper and we would be fools to let a worthless document and kindergarten ideas of "fairness" stand in the way of furthering what could be a fantastic mutually beneficial agreement with the Indian government.  The Indians will point any nuclear weapons we help them build at the right people, so I see no practical reason to refrain from helping them as long as we can be reasonable certain they'll be secure in their hands. 

This is diplomacy, power is God.



Edited by Genghis
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 19:47
including maybe one day yourselves, I wonder what Bush got up to in Pakistan...
Back to Top
cattus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
  Quote cattus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 19:49
What really is binding internationaly law but power anyway
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 20:42

yay!!!! lets give more nuclear power to a country that could possibly be invovled in a major and even in a major nuclear war with its neighbor!!!!

but no nukes for iran, not even peaceful energy

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
erci View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1426
  Quote erci Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 20:58
nukes for everyone! we want nukes too 
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 21:15
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

The profane reality still has the upper hand, and we ignore it at our peril.

How dare we ignore it, in its brutality and consumptive disregard for everything b4 it. It will run its course as others b4 it. I think it was Malcom-X who compared the ideologies of communism and capatilism, by using the analogy of a baloon. He first presented the end of communism by slightly opening the mouth of this imaginary infalted baloon, the result of which we can visualize. As for capatlilism he continued to blow air into this baloon, that result too can be visualized. Who knows!!

I saw some news program on one of the international agreements; one that France was pushing for.  A retired diplomat (British IIRC) said that the French aren't terribly international unless France's interests are at stake.

Indeed u r right, neither are any other major powers, the problem is not the individual countries but the ideaology that is captilism. As I mentioned before it is not entirely an American issue, although there is much relavance to the US to speak of it only. It is the Gulf Stream of the capatilist global weather system. The point is that in the times we live in now we have to look for a globally sustainable alternative. We r killing Bisons all over again, the only problem is that the whole world is now the Great Plains. What we can do is press our govts to make an effort to formulate such a system, for it is beyond the capacity of individuals and organizations. What i find personally unacceptable is the resignation to a future that might be an abrupt shock to the system.

Originally posted by cattus

What really is binding internationaly law but power anyway

Yes, there is an old english saying "possession is nine-tenths of the law."



Edited by malizai_
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 21:22
Originally posted by prsn41ife

yay!!!! lets give more nuclear power to a country that could possibly be invovled in a major and even in a major nuclear war with its neighbor!!!!

but no nukes for iran, not even peaceful energy

Originally posted by erci

nukes for everyone! we want nukes too 

Comeon guys we can already artificialy bring the onset of the iceage. There is a russian saying "If u have a hammer every problem looks like a nail".

I say nobody should have this hammer, no body should get to sleep with their nuclear breifcase. 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.