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."
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is built on three pillars; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Only the third has had any real success; proliferation continues, with Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea having gained nukes and South Africa, Libya and Iran having got most of the way. Existing nuclear powers have yet to disarm in any significant way, with the Brits making the most progress (fewest nukes out of any of the official powers) and we've still voted to renew our "deterrent".
The only thing remaining in the NPT for non-nuclear nations is some help on power generation. I can't see it lasting long; we may see countries withdrawing en masse in the future.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
The rich people don't matter. It's the number of people who can't eat enough or be warm enough that matter. And I can assure you that countries with bad economies usually have a lot of poverty. So, actually so, sorry.
China's been getting richer faster than any country for last several years. And their poverty rate has been shooting down. The disparity didn't matter.
Equal communities are usually equally POOR. It's equal opportunity combined with unequal rewards that matters.
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
Anyone know why India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I'm not sure if this makes a significant difference or not but it's strange that India wouldn't join it and give some measure of assurance to other countries who could be supplying the technology. There must be a good reason why though.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
You realize that the article you linked ends by saying that he did say Israel should be wiped off the map, right?
I'll grant you that he didn't say that his country should be the one doing the wiping. There's still a huge difference between a stable democracy (India) and a country where the religious leadership holds a veto over everything (including who can run for office) and which denies the right of one of it's neighbors to exist.
I don't think that such a dramatic dichotomy exists. FWIW, Israel plays the democracy card too, though about half of its population isn't represented.
As for the quote, yes I realize what the author said at the end. It is also blatantly dishonest squirming to reach a conclusion that is palletable to the US establishment. Given that the USA supported Saddam's invasion of Iran, resulting in about 1 million dead, and then began to play both sides, I'd say the author's attempt to save face for NYT by providing "context" is extremely misguided.
Now on to those civilized Indian quotes about Pakistan...
Caste itself is a religious concept, which btw is not limited to Hinduism in India, even Christians practice it: ... how can you even compare it to India ?! Pakistan is MAJOR nuclear proliferator. Just google AQ Khan for the details.
http://www.dalitchristians.com/
The Constitution of India forbids discrimination on the basis of caste and provides many measures for affirmative action for the upliftment of people who have been oppressed for centuries. I simply don't understand how caste -> ! secular. What does secularism have to do with nukes anyway ?
The British monarch, who is also the head of state, has to be a member of the Church of England. There is no such restriction in India, where we have had Hindu, Muslim and Sikh presidents. We have also had a Dalit president. So British 'secularism' is good enough for you but not the Indian variant ? Nevermind that in post WW2 US, blacks didn't have the right to vote ? Was the US non-secular for 250 years of its existence ?
China and Russia too have their internal troubles and are by no means 'peaceful'. France recently had a lot of riots carried out by immigrants. Do you propose that they give up their nukes since they don't meet your criteria of being peaceful?
Pakistan, a country ruled by military dictators with Islamist leaning, the birth place of the Taliban who carried out 911
India has one of the largest resources for thorium. Thorium can be used in an alternative nuclear cycle that is much less wastefull and produces far less highly radioactive waste (not actinides). These reactors would probably not need solid fuel assemblies, like they are used in the west. What is for sale in the west is a technology that produces much more waste, has a risk of being turned into bombs (you can't with thorium) and keeps you dependent on delivery of very expensive fuel assemblies (that is how the nuclear companies make their money).
That last part is probably the intention: keep India (and all other buyers) dependent on a supply that you can take away again. It would be much better if India would sell some thorium reactors to the west, that would save a lot of hazardous waste.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Look the Muslims of Northern India had held power before the British took over. So a section of the Muslim Elite thought when they throw out the British they can go back to being kings. Then they realized in a democracy if people started voting on religious lines the Hindus would always be a majority. These people (the Muslim League) were not willing to base their politics on something besides religion nor were they willing to be in permanent opposition (like the South African Whites party nowadays) so they came up with the brilliant idea of a separate nation for Muslims. It would be like if at the end of Apartheid the whites had demanded a separate white state in South Africa. The people of the two releigions had been living together for centuries and it was simply not possible to just separate them. Some so called Muslim majority areas which went to Pakistan were 51% Muslim, 49% Hindus and after partition the 49% had to just get up and leave. And large Muslim majority areas were there at the heart of India which India simply could not give to Pakistan or India would be reduced to a patchwork like Africa. So partition was imperfect,incomplete and stupid , Pakistan a country based on religion is a stupid idea for the 20th century (BTW that goes for Israel too.) But the partition and the corresponding riots/ethnic cleansing which happened crested a lot of enemity between people of the two religions ( I had an Uncle who stayed on in East Pakistan. He was Hindu but he had been a senior police officer under the British and simply didnt believe anyone could touch him but yup he was killed by Muslims during the riots. The rest of the family left with only the clothes on their backs leaving behind lands and factories) Riots happened on both sides but they were a lot worse on the Pakistani side. This was because Pakistan had declared itself a Muslim only state while India had declared itself Secular and still had large Muslim populations in its heartlands so it couldnt carry out the kind of ethnic cleansing Pakistan did. The result at time of Partition the areas that were Pakistan had a 24% Hindu population . Now its less than 4%. India on the other hand started out with a 18% Muslim population which is now 21%. Just in case if you are wondering whether I hate Muslims I dont My wife is Muslim. What I do hate are the Muslim League and its philosophy which caused the partition and am virulently opposed to any philosophy which says people of different religions cannot stay together. The sad thing is Pakistan having being founded by selfih elites who didnt give a damn how many people suffered just as long as they can grab political power has become a totally unstable and dangerous state. Even though the GDP per capita of Pakistan is higher than India it is skewed horribly. There is a class of feudal lords the Bhuttos, the Sharifs etc who own almost all the land not owned by the Army and win all the elections as if the people dont vote for them they will throw the tenants off their land. Most of the rest of the population are no better than serfs like in Imperial Russia over whom the Feudal politicians hold the power of life and death. The only way out of poverty is to join the Army which has had the unfortunate effect of making the Army the strongest institution in the country. The Army on its part can only maintain its prestige and its budget as long as there are conflicts so they have no interest in peace with India or Afghanistan. The feudal politicians have made a deal with the Army that as long as they keep giving half the budget to the Army they can steal the rest and the people can go to hell. No wonder the desperate people are willing to listen to anything (including Islamic fundamentalism) which promises them a way out of their misery. All in all a very bad situation even without China giving them Nukes to try and hamper India's progress. The only solution I see is for India to reabsorb Pakistan and Bangladesh (Given the much faster population growth that has happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh this would result in a cou
**Life is too short to be serious**
Look your Analysis fails. Here's why. You took the percentages from an old census while the numbers are current. The Muslim population of India is growing much faster than that of Pakistan so the 12.5 million difference has been wiped out. Why is the Muslim population of India growing faster? Because in India the Muslims happen to be poor and backward and poor people have more children while in Pakistan Muslims represent the entire gamut of society from poor to rich so they have an average growth rate. As to why the Muslims of India are backward has to do with historical reasons specifically the Partition. When the Partition happened rich and well connected Muslim families with disposable liquid resources could afford to leave for Pakistan (same for Hindus on the Pakistani side) but poor, uneducated , slum dwelling Muslims could not afford to leave so in general the Muslim population left behind was a backward population and 50 years of self isolation into Ghettos/Mohallas has prevented them from catching up with Indian society in general. Its not like there are no poor Hindus in India but there are also rich Hindus but very few rich Muslims (Azim Premji one of the richest men in the world is the exception which proves the rule). The only rich Muslims left behind were the staunchly secular ones who thought the entire idea of creating a nation based on religion was an abomination and had fought tooth and nail against the idea of Pakistan. However after partition there was so much anger against Muslims in India that even these Muslims left mostly for Britain or Australia (Being ex citizens of the British empire for a certain transitional period they were welcomed in Britain especially if they had some white blood mixed in but even otherwise if they had connections amongst British officials Funnily enough the British born children of these Secularist Muslims are staunchly pro Pakistan Go figure) . Also the poor backward Hindus leftover in Pakistan were forced to convert or wiped out so there is not a corresponding backward Hindu population in Pakistan.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Relatively peaceful? India has been involved in about 10 conflicts over the past 60 years, with two nuclear powers, including continuing civil insurgencies within the country and the war over Kashmir. Iran has been involved in one.
Well no. To use that kind of brute force the US would have to be not just the strongest but also stronger than all the rest of the world combined and not just in total but in every small local theater of the world. For example the US would have to have a larger Army than the Russians have in the Caucuses, A larger Army , Navy and Air Force than the Chinese in the Taiwan Straits, A larger navy than the Indians in the Indian Ocean, a larger Air force than the French in West Africa, a larger Navy than the Australians in Oceania and so on ALL AT THE SAME TIME(Note I mentioned a number of US allies too as the Might is Right line will make everyone an enemy). This for a nation which is already crying uncle to North Korea as the entire Army is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and there's nothing to spare for North Korea without exposing either Taiwan or Central America and has already given up on dominating Africa or Central Asia. So absolute might may be right but in today's world nobody has that kind of might. Simply population will not allow it. A country of 300 million simply cannot rule a world of 6 billion merely by might if it loses its moral right to rule (which it won by saving the world from Fascism during WW2)as the difference in technology levels are no longer that big. So if America wants to continue being the global cop it has to act like a cop(Like it did in Afghanistan) and not like a thug (Like it did in Iraq)
**Life is too short to be serious**