Australia PM defends nuclear sale

[Nutmegger]

Source: BBC News

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has defended his controversial decision to sell uranium to India.

The decision overturns Australia's long standing rule of not exporting to countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Mr Howard said the decision is the best way to bring India into the nuclear mainstream.

But the opposition Labour Party has vowed to block any deal if it wins power in federal elections this year.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6950735.stm

---

I really think it's disgusting that this is getting scant attention.

Hopefully the Labour Party is successful and will show Howard where to shove it. We need a country like Australia to challenge this corrupt "nukes for mangoes" deal.

[David__77]

1. Why should NPT be defended?

All is does is help enable established nuclear powers to use nuclear blackmail against all others. It's little wonder that India wanted such capabilities.

[cosmicone]

2. Why shouldn't India buy Uranium?

Is it only a privilege of white countries?

India is using the uranium for power generation and in reactors under IAEA safeguards.

[bananas]

3. Only some reactors will be under IAEA safeguards - 40 to 50 weapons a year as a result of the deal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x107257

This Business of a US-India Nuclear Deal
By J. Sri Raman
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Saturday 04 August 2007

In his farewell address on January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered the prophetic warning: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." He was talking of the influence of the complex (for which his epithet was to prove enduring) in Washington's corridors of power.

We in India had to wait until the second term of a distant successor with very different views on the subject to discover the relevance of the warning to us. The US military-industrial complex (along with its strategic-business partners elsewhere) has just given us proof of its influence in the councils of government in New Delhi as well. The influence has, in fact, been as important a factor behind the dramatic advance towards the finalization of the US-India nuclear deal as the diplomatic skills said to have been displayed on both sides.

<snip>

Less than due publicity was given to the fact that the military complex was conducting its own parallel negotiation process. Buried in reports on the advance was a semiofficial acknowledgement of this accompanying exercise.

<snip>

We have noted before in these columns the expectations of corporations and experts from the deal, and these bear repetition. Expert projections made in December 2006 envisage an increase in India's nuclear arsenal by 40 to 50 weapons a year as a result of the deal. The country is also expected to acquire 40 nuclear reactors over the next two decades or so.

<snip>

[cosmicone]

4. What has that got to do with India asserting itself?

If India becomes powerful as a result of the deal, so what? I don't get it!

Are only US, Britain, France, Russia and China supposed to be insulated from foreign dominance?

These are the very people who have attacked, colonized and looted the rest of the world because of superior weapons. Now the rest of the world wants to stop it by acquiring defenses.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

If the 5 "nuclear weapons states" don't like nukes, they should destroy EVERY nuke they have FIRST and then only try to join this debate.

[bananas]

5. This deal is a scam to get around the IAEA safeguards

The IAEA safeguards are designed to prevent weapons proliferation.
This deal is a scam to get around those safeguards.
Placing just some reactors under safeguard is just for show, it's a propoganda ploy.
When you wrote "Why shouldn't India buy Uranium? ... India is using the uranium for power generation and in reactors under IAEA safeguards" you were just catapulting the propoganda; you now say you are in favor of nuclear weapons proliferation.
This will result in an arms race - Pakistan, China, etc will respond to this as a threat. If you want to see the Taj Mahal, do it soon, it may be vaporized the next time India and Pakistan have one of their little disputes.

Your point about the 5 nuclear weapons states is meaningless nonsense. When have any of them threatened India with nuclear weapons? Never. The 5 nuclear weapons states have been reducing their arsenals - their weapons were mainly pointed at each other - they have plenty of conventional arms to use against the non-nuclear states - Britain didn't use nukes in the Falklands war - or against the IRA; the USA didn't nuke Vietnam; China didn't nuke Tibet. And the US didn't use nukes against Afghanistan or Iraq.

It's a shame that on a supposedly liberal progressive website there are people advocating "peace through superior fire-power", something you only used to see on right-wing nutcase websites.

[cosmicone]

6. Yours is a canned viewpoint which doesn't address reality

in my humble opinion.

The thread was about AU selling Uranium which WILL be under IAEA safeguards -- so what is the problem?

Pakistan cannot get a deal like India and will not be able to effectively participate in an arms race. China is free to do so anyway.

If the 5 nuclear weapons states don't really need the nukes, why don't they DESTROY them at once? What are they keeping them for?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... perhaps to enforce hegemony?

[bananas]

9. You can't dispose of that many nukes overnight

But with your attitude - we'll reverse direction and start building them again.


Let's bring back the Peacekeeper missile! Wheee!!! War is fun!!!!


Tsar Bomba! 50 megatons of megafun!!!

[cosmicone]

11. Who said overnight?

It has been 10 years and the big 5 are building more fearsome nukes while destroying the circa-1950's useless firecrackers.

It is ALL about hegemony of the big 5.

[fujiyama]

7. China is a totalitarian state

and you're absolutely wrong about about China never threatening India. China views India as a regional threat and has been funding Pakistan and its military (including its nuke program) for many years. They started the arms race years ago.

It's unfortunate that many liberals have fallen into believing that the status quo of protecting the "Big 5" is somehow just and reasonable. It's not. India is asserting itself as a global power and rightly so. It will soon have more people than China and has maintained its democracy for sixty years.

Your view of India is condescending and typical of those that believe that India isn't capable of responsibly handling nukes.

[bananas]

8. I don't think the big 5 are capable of responsibly handling nukes, either

and neither do a lot of other people - who were able to convince them to stop escalating and to start reducing their arsenals.
There were a number of times MAD was almost triggered by accident.
And then Bush wanting to use nuclear bunker-busters on Iran.
Oh wait, maybe you think he should.
He'll be commander-in-chief for another year and a half in office - maybe he will make you happy.
It's 5 minutes to midnight ... tick tick tick ....
http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/timeline.html

[LeftishBrit]

10. Neither do I...

I would like nuclear disarmament everywhere! And I'm not happy about any country building new nukes. I don't approve of India developing new nukes; just as I don't approve of Britain replacing Trident.

[cosmicone]

12. Very succinctly put ........... n/t