The Forum > Article Comments > Why Australia should sell uranium to India > Comments
Why Australia should sell uranium to India : Comments
By Kaushik Kapisthalam, published 23/8/2007Australian refusal to supply uranium to India would be a short-sighted move to preserve a failed 60's nuclear order and an affront to India.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by Atom1, Friday, 24 August 2007 6:51:24 PM
| |
India is ready to sign the NPT anytime but ONLY as a nuclear weapons state.
pakistan , north korea, iran and china should be placed under sanctions for illegal proliferation Posted by ecotrin, Friday, 24 August 2007 8:33:46 PM
| |
> exert pressure for India .. to sign the CTBT
In 1965, US President Lyndon B. Johnson was informed that massive crop failures in India had forced millions of people to the brink of famine. The President responded by cutting off U.S. economic and food aid. He instituted a "Short Leash" food aid policy where he personally would approve the release of surplus PL.480 US grain shipments, on a month to month basis. He hoped to "persuade" India to settle the Kashmir dispute (in favor of Pakistan) and to halt its nuclear weapons development program (ordered by then Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri right after the first Chinese nuclear test). It was Shastri, when he discovered that the US had shipped poor quality wheat, had earlier refused PL.480 grain. He asked his wife not to cook evening meals and proceeded to ask the Indian people to go hungry once a day. India neither gave up Kashmir nor halted its bomb program. Shastri's successor Indira Gandhi ignored Richard Nixon's many threats, including sending the USS Enterprise carrier battle group into the Bay of Bengal. Nixon's SoS, Kissinger even tried to persuade the Chinese Premier Chou En-Lai to attack India in 1971, to relieve the pressure on Nixon's good friend, the Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan, then engaged in genocide in what is now Bangladesh. Indira finally gave permission for a test in 1974. In 1998, Madeleine Albright also sought to pressure India to sign the CTBT. Many threats were made, sanctions imposed etc. I think you are overestimating how India will respond to foreign pressure. India will probably sign the CTBT in the manner that France did... when its simulation and subcritical test capabilities make actual testing no longer necessary, it will conduct some full yield proof tests to gather simulation data, receive more data from the US, then sign the treaty, with requisite noises about disarmament and world peace. It will sign a future FMCT when, like the P5, it has accumulated a surplus of fissile weapons grade material Posted by john frum, Friday, 24 August 2007 10:59:58 PM
| |
John, not one of the points you raised gives any reason for Australia to export uranium to India.
http://www.votenuclearfree.net http://www.icanw.org Posted by Atom1, Saturday, 25 August 2007 10:42:54 AM
| |
atom1,
You are wrong and john is right. Besides, Uranium to India has already been decided upon and there is nothing you can do about it. The war has been won by the pro-India Australians. Stop being a loser and grow up. Posted by ecotrin, Saturday, 25 August 2007 11:51:31 AM
| |
Is Australian national security helped by a refusal to sell India fuel?
Did Downer's criticism in 1998 achieve anything? India just ignored it. When Clinton changed tack, Australia was left acting more royal than the king, then scrambled to adjust its stance. Consider that Jakarta has approached Delhi to buy cruise missiles. Is the possession of supersonic anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles by Australian neighbors desirable? Indonesia also wants to "buy tanks, warships and heavy ammunition" and have India supply spares and maintain the Su-30 Flankers that Jakarta has just bought from Russia (India has a license that allows it to manufacture the fighters). The Indian DAE is planning to export heavy water reactors to Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. These units can be refueled while online. They can produce weapons grade Plutonium and Tritium. How would India respond to Australian concerns on these matters? Would an Australia that actually engaged with India be treated differently to one that just criticized and made demands? Posted by john frum, Saturday, 25 August 2007 11:58:46 AM
|
- The (heavily flawed) NPT - but it's all we've currently got, hence the need for a N Weapons Convention as part of the disarmament process
- That India is not a signatory to the NPT
- That, under the NPT, India is a Non-Weapons State
- That Australia is well in a position to exert pressure for India (and other nations) to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- It contravenes the Treaty of Raratonga and could well spur Pakistan/China nuclear deals
- That all military facilities remain EXEMPT from the safeguards system
- That India has admitted (as did China) that it "needs" our uranium so as to use its existing reserves for military use.
"Given India's need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production." - K. Subrahmanyam, former head of the India's National Security Advisory Board.
And lastly, yes it IS hypocritical - we shouldn't be mining and exporting uranium at all when we could be world leaders in clean, ecologically sustainable and safe energy sources.
http://www.votenuclearfree.net
http://www.icanw.org