Centerfield

So the lesson here, especially for Iran, is if you hold out long enough the US will cave in to your demands. India already has nukes, with the capability of producing about half a dozen per year. The latest agreement apparently frees up enough domestic uranium production in India to ramp that up to 10 or so bombs per year.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA)“America cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We can't tell Iran, a country that has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, that they can't have [uranium] enrichment technologies while simultaneously carving out a special exemption from nuclear proliferation laws for India, a nation that has refused to sign the treaty.”
good riposte to the Bush deal by Joseph Cirincione over at Carnegie

partial quote:

The Indian leaders and press are crowing about their victory over America. For good reason: President Bush has done what Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and his own father refused to do--break U.S. and international law to aid India’s nuclear weapons program. In 1974, India cheated on its agreements with the United States and other nations to do what Iran is accused of doing now: using a peaceful nuclear energy program to build a nuclear bomb. India used plutonium produced in a Canadian-supplied reactor to detonate a bomb it then called a “peaceful nuclear device.” In response, President Richard Nixon and Congress stiffened U.S. laws and Nixon organized the Nuclear Suppliers Group to prevent any other nation from following India’s example. President Bush has now unilaterally shattered those guidelines and his action would violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty proscription against aiding another nation’s nuclear weapons program. It would require the repeal or revision of several major U.S. laws, including the U.S. Nonproliferation Act. Nor has he won any significant concessions from India. India refuses to agree to end its production of nuclear weapons material, something the U.S., the UK, France, Russia and China have already done.

This is where the president is likely to run into trouble. Republicans and Democrats in Congress are deeply concerned about the deal and the way it was crafted. Keeping with the administration’s penchant for secrecy, the deal was cooked by a handful of senior officials (one of whom is now a lobbyist for the Indian government) and never reviewed by the Departments of State, Defense or Energy before it was announced with a champagne toast by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Congress was never consulted. Republican committee staff say the first members heard about it was when the fax announcing the deal came into their offices. Worse, for the president, this appears to be another give away to a foreign government at the expense of U.S. national security interests.

"United States is looking forward to eating Indian mangoes" - Bush

What else are we eating?

The India deal is bad because of how influences Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons?

But there is no influence whatsoever, the argument is broken. How the USA decides to treat India will influence Iran's behavior about as much as UN proclamations and EU negotiations -- i.e. NOT AT ALL. Iran is intent on pursuing nuclear weapons regardless.

The USA cannot influence India to give up their nuclear weapons either, it would never happen.

The non-proliferation treaty has been a joke ever since Pakistan's chief nuclear weapons scientist started throwing out nuclear bomb making technology and equipment like candy.

I agree that the deal is a good thing. My post about the deal represented the first positive thing I've said about the current administration's foreign policy aptitude.

The best criticism of the deal is that it might undermine the NPT; however, the continuing effectiveness of the NPT is questionable at best: The treaty clearly presented no deterrent to North Korea’s flamboyant withdrawal in 2003 and has so far failed to moderate Iran’s boisterous defiance. Given its record, India is a far better candidate for membership in the “responsible nuclear powers club” than either of those states.

Th debate is academic, anyway. I doubt that the NSG and Congress will authorize the deal.

I'm fine with stable democracies getting nuclear weapons.

and as long as they stay "stable" that's all well and good, it's when a formally "stable" democracy becomes unstable and they still have nukes is when we get to start worrying.

India has just been let into the Big Fish club. For a variety of reasons, they've been given a seat at the big table. They matter, economically and politically. They're a big player. That's what this deal signals. It's an acknowledgement of reality and a reward for how they've interacted with us as a nation.

One can find all sorts of principled axes on which to get bent about this if you don't like it. If you want to criticize Bush for his government being inconsistent with our policies as a whole across decades and from nation to nation, Fine. Have at! Just be sure to leave some fish in the barrel for the next fellow to shoot.

Everyone wants to be in this club of international players who really matter. There's no one way to get in. Members of the big fish club will treat all the small fish differently depending on a variety of individual priorities. Membership applications will not be accepted from all, and each will not be treated the same. No, it won't be fair. Sorry folks.

Neither we nor anyone else has anything near enough power to exercise absolute control over who gets admitted to the Big Fish Nukes club, either. So we'll pick our battles, keep out as many as we can, and let in both the ones we think are good bets and the ones we don't think we can stop. Facing it any other way is ivory-tower whacking off.

You know bk that argument sounds like the precursor to Tom Lehrer's song about nuclear proliferation - stuff I heard 40 years ago.
It was scary then, it's scary now. Recall what happened to Indian political leaders in the past 40 eyars.

Several things. If India wants to join the big boys club that's well and good but why should we help them? Are Californian or Mexican mangoes that bad?
Also, you have to wonder what payoff we made to Pakistan to sustain this agreemnt. After all Pak and India aren't exactly bosum buddies. I'll bet there's a lot in there that you aren't going to learn about.
Are we really doing India a favor? How many nukes is enough. And how many will pakistan decide it needs.
How much of this is Bush admin PR, show the President on the job doing international things to take people's attention off the abject failures of Bush's domestic and other foreign policies?

Heck, if Bangalore goes vitrified glass there's a lot of coders in the US that wouldn't shed a tear.

So we don't like GW when he's an idealogue and we don't like him when he's a pragmatist.

Hell, we just don't like him!

> So the lesson here, especially for Iran, is if you hold out long
> enough the US will cave in to your demands.

How is Iran's behavior going to change with this deal? I mean, they're ALREADY, er, proliferating.

> You know bk that argument sounds like the precursor to Tom Lehrer's song about nuclear
> proliferation - stuff I heard 40 years ago. It was scary then, it's scary now.

Yes, it is. The way I see it, that just makes it more important that we manage the situation to strengthen our hand and reduce long-term risks. Integrating India into the nonproliferation regime is the best we can do with our hand. Indeed, we have to deal with the reality of Pakistan having the bomb, too, and probably even N Korea, too (sigh). Taking away India's nukes isn't an option, any more than taking it away from Alabama....

> Recall what happened to Indian political leaders in the past 40 eyars.

I don't believe that, say, Sonia Gandhi could pull that off today. It takes 50 years for democracy to become robust, and they're there. They weren't back then.

My argument is not to eliminate India's nukes, it's to avoid helping them increase them, which seems to be the result of this pact.

As for George, if he's a pragmatist then his reality is outside this particular space-time continuum.

ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
TITLE: Who's Next

First we got the bomb, and that was good
'Cause we love peace and motherhood
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way
Who's next

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve
'Cause they're on our side, I believe
China got the bomb, but have no fears
They can't wipe us out for at least five years
Who's next

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day
South Africa wants two, that's right
One for the black and one for the white
Who's next

Egypt's gonna get one too
Just to use on you know who
So Israel's getting tense
Wants one in self defense
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm
But just in case, we better get a bomb
Who's next

Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb
Who's next, who's next, who's next, who's next

Yeah, Marcus, if we only all lived in hippie world, it would be a grand world indeed. Let me know once you've got Kim Jong Il converted, ok?