The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Uranium, India and the nuclear non-proliferation regime > Comments

Uranium, India and the nuclear non-proliferation regime : Comments

By Jim Green, published 15/8/2007

The precedent set by Australia's nuclear trade with India increases the risk of other countries pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
A few years ago, our Australian government made the conscious choice to assist a criminal US government in a war on it's own population - and had the lying gall to accuse we objectors of being "anti-American". The results are now in for everyone to see.

Now it seems, we are poised to do the same thing for the Indian people.

Does anyone here really believe that the people of India wish for nuclear weapons?

Then who tells Mr Downer what to do or think? Exactly which "foreigners" is Foreign Affairs having an affair with? That is the question.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:05:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim puts up some good arguments but he underemphasizes the historical and (less known) strategic background to this issue.

India first exploded a nuclear device in 1974 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha > Its main concerns were that one enemy (China) had nuclear weapons and India also wanted to gain the edge over its constant opponent (Pakistan).

Once Pakistan developed deliverable nuclear weapons (by the mid 1990s) and tested them in 1998 (in response to Indian tests the same year) there was no turning back.

Given the reality of nuclear threats from Pakistan and China India's nuclear weapons capability is seen as an essential source of protection and national pride by the Indian people.

I think the green house gas argument for supplying uranium to India has always been basically window dressing. Australia wants to strengthen its defence relationship with India (partly to contain China and to keep India on side). This is in the context of wider US strategy which is to block Chinese and Russian expansion.

OTHER COUNTERS to Jim's idealism are:

(1) the NPT is basically a Club of the 5 large powers (US, Russia, UK, France and China) who developed nuclear weapons first and then wished to maintain their dominant (NPT endorsed) status quo by preventing other countries from developing nuclear defenses; and

(2) My Indian contacts have made it quite plain that if trade partners created a uranium shortage in India, India would allow uranium levels in civilian reactors to run down while maintaining uranium requirements for Bomb making. In any case they estimate that India will develop the capacity for up to 72 thermonuclear devices (hydrogen bombs) a year, using India's indigenous Uranium. http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/07/australian-uranium-unnecessary-for.html

(3) If Australia doesn't supply uranium to India then the US, Canada or even Russia could make up the shortfall.

Being principled on an issue is useless if it has no effect on the real world.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 12:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you accept the inevitability of increased uranium sales then I think Australia should act as a kind of paid umpire. To do that it needs to become a preferred supplier with predictable rules but perhaps offering extended services such as taking back waste. That way there is reduced temptation to use less principled suppliers. One of the rules would be that any diversion for military use would lead to blacklisting. In other words they would have their bomb but henceforth they have to buy from Khazakstan or wherever.

I note the people who urge energy cutbacks for developing countries tend to be globetrotting frequent flyers...do what I say not what I do.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 1:18:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must disagree with what Plantagenant has posted. The difference that is made by abiding by some principles on the sales of Uranium is that with 30% of the current Uranium ore in the world in Australia it makes Uranium users, such as India very cautious. When their supplies of Uranium reduce to the point where that next amount requires them to use Australian Uranium then they have to consider further optons. That day will come and they know that so it matters to them now if we do not sell any Uranium to them now.
Posted by WAChris, Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what is the point of this discussion? do we have any cabinet members asking for advice?

the relevant fact is this decision will be made in secret by a group of people who were perfectly willing to engage in illicit activity with saddam hussein, in the face of u n sanctions. they aren't concerned with anything but money and votes.

you are ruled by these people. if you had any self respect, this would be a matter of concern.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 16 August 2007 7:46:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEMOS, you are too quick to dismiss the fact that governments work for the people, not the other way around.
http://www.votenuclearfree.net
Posted by Atom1, Friday, 17 August 2007 11:33:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Americans could not get a defacto NPT, CTBT or FMCT from the Indians. And how they tried.
Nixon cursed in 1974. Carter cajoled in 1976. Clinton even changed the NSG rules in 1992 to require full scope safeguards.
Clinton sanctioned in 1998, Madeleine Albright threatened. They sent Strobe Talbot in 1999. Nicholas Burns tried in 2007.
No Australian PM will fare better.

An ironclad assurance that no Australian Uranium will be used in a weapons program?
Yes.

Fissile cutoff? Test ban?
No.

No Indian government would survive such an agreement with Howard. The Indian PM would be looking for a new job the next morning.
Posted by john frum, Saturday, 18 August 2007 10:54:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just thought that in terms of nuclear weapon, it is extremely dangerous to have the nuclear deal with India.
First of all, India with its Islamic background is a potential Islamic extremism foster.
Another reason is India is producing missile which can reach US.

Hopefully, India will not be another Iraq, which US supported in 1980's to against Iran, because US is gonna support India to again China.

However, China is actually becoming an actual capitalism country and the majority of Chinese, which is Han Nation, has not invaded other country for more than 500 hundred years. Furthermore, Chinese seems really interested in business and earning money.

Please read the article written by a Canadian correspondent, http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2007/08/happy_birthday_1.php
Posted by Mark.elisita, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 12:05:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> First of all, India with its Islamic background is
> a potential Islamic extremism foster.

850 million Hindus might have something to say about that..

> Another reason is India is producing missile which can reach US.

And Chinese ICBMs were designed to reach Mongolia?

> the majority of Chinese, which is Han Nation, has not invaded
> other country for more than 500 hundred years.

1951 - Tibet 1962 - India 1979 - Vietnam ?
Or is that land all Chinese?

> Please read the article written by a Canadian correspondent,

Eric Margolis is well connected to Pakistani army brass.. his opinions are no surprise... if it benefits the Indian economy, it must be very bad.
Posted by john frum, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 3:49:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark

You obviously haven't read much history. Chinese fought Australians in Korea.

100,000s of Chinese troops fought allied troops (including Americans, Canadians, Australians and others) from 1950 during the Korean War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War .

Why did China intervene and launch a surprise attack against Australian troops? China did not want a united Korea that was free or democratic. China saw it as too dangerous for the Korean people to be given a choice.

China wanted to save the Stalinist Kim regime in North Korea and that regime (now with nuclear weapons and missiles) is still supported by China today. North Korea has made a few superficial moves towards nuclear disarmament.

While Australia's relations withs China have improved its client state, North Korea, remains a dangerous international flashpoint.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 8:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy