Slashdot Mirror
India Joins Nuclear Market
figona brings news that India will be allowed to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). A waiver was approved yesterday that provided an exception to the requirements that India sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. This means India will be able to buy nuclear fuel from the world market and purchase reactors from the US, France, and Russia; something it has been unable to do since it began nuclear testing in 1974 (which inspired the creation of the NSG). The waiver does not include terms to cut off access if India resumes nuclear testing, but the US Congress drafted a letter stating their willingness to do so. Opponents of the waiver have called it a "non-proliferation disaster."
Pakistan has already been a major source of proliferation and has no desire to follow any international rules of law. Demanding any of the same treatment from the NSG is just a big show.
I wonder about India's stance on first strike policy? I read once in the mid 90's that India stated that it reserves the right to launch a first strike if there were a ground invasion, when asked to sign a treaty with Pakistan saying neither nation would use nukes. The reasoning was that India could stand to receive far more Nukes then Pakistan and that by agreeing to not use them Pakistan would be in a better position attack. Do you know if they still have that stance or what the current stance on First strike and tactical use are?
Dude, shut up. You don't know what you are saying.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
India? Stable?
Say hello to india's neighbours.
And one of the only countries to get into a nuclear standoff where they were ready to blow each other to bits (US vs USSR would have never happened).
Allowing India into the nuclear market... Was not a smart idea if only because the situation there is still unclear.
Where do you get off calling a country with a rigid caste-system, extreme levels of poverty and corruption a "stable democracy"? It might suit the US agenda to pretend that some developing world countries are more "democratic" than others but that doesn't make it true. Democracy does not equal the ballot box, least of all in a country where most people are still tied to certain people/parties either through land or religion.
Irate Indian mod marking the post as Troll? Have some balls and respond.