Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The whole Iran campaign is predicated on denying to Iran its rights under the NPT, as well.

The NPT is quickly becoming irrelevant, and we have had informed commentators here on ET that have indicated that it is a scam in the first place, precisely because the way the technology is handled is all politically determined, and not based on the technological realities of nuclear energy.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 8th, 2007 at 07:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We need to replace the NPT with internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle.

India brings some real commercial insight to nuclear energy to the table.   They are committed to thorium fuel - which can in theory make the manufacture of nuclear weapons extremely difficult, if used correctly.

Regrettably though the heavy water (CANDU) technology is well suited for making weapons grade plutonium as well.

India needs to be pressured to abandon its nuclear weapons, but so does the United States, Britain, Russia...

Interestingly the Russians, who have the most experience with dismantling nuclear weapons and getting rid of the fissionable cores permanently, made big bucks in the 1990's selling the uranium from those cores to the west.

India is hurting itself and its prestige by making this an issue.   They need to begin to negotiate from a weapons reduction/disarmament profile.

by NNadir on Mon Jan 8th, 2007 at 10:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We need to replace the NPT with internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Could you elaborate on what "internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle" would look like?

India needs to be pressured to abandon its nuclear weapons, but so does the United States, Britain, Russia...

As signatories of the NPT, aren't they obligated to "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control"?

Who can put pressure on the nuclear powers to do this, and how?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 10:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The NPT is quickly becoming irrelevant, and we have had informed commentators here on ET that have indicated that it is a scam in the first place

Besides Ireland, the Nuclear Suppliers' Group includes France, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and -- surprise, surprise -- China.

Japan, France and Canada disappoint, but among all these others aren't there any besides Ireland that are contemplating a veto?

And a very simple question: Why doesn't China just veto the deal, since some believe that it is motivated by a "the desire to counter the rise of China, in this case by accelerating New Delhi's ascent as a global power", and a more nuclear-enabled India as its neighbor doesn't seem to have any upside for China?

Is there a general, albeit unstated, recognition and resignation that India is going to get that nuclear equipment one way or another and better have this in an open transparent manner that can be monitored more easily rather than have it done covertly?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 10:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series