View Full Version : So India gets nukes, Iran doesn't
JohnnyMack
3/6/2006, 09:54 PM
India (one of the nations most rapidly emerging markets) is allowed to continue its production of nuclear weapons. They've thumbed their noses at the NNPT for years and no one does anything about it.
Iran is considered a threat to the world so they get UN sanctions and the threat of invasion.
I'm confused. :mack:
India will use their nukes to kill other Muslims, like Israel. Iran will use theirs to kill Christians and Jews.
clear?
or India = democracy and close economic ties = $$$
Iran = ?
royalfan5
3/6/2006, 10:00 PM
Iran can get their Islamic Bomb just like Pakistan when they need to protect call centers that provide customer support to the US.
Okla-homey
3/6/2006, 10:07 PM
India (one of the nations most rapidly emerging markets) is allowed to continue its production of nuclear weapons. They've thumbed their noses at the NNPT for years and no one does anything about it.
Iran is considered a threat to the world so they get UN sanctions and the threat of invasion.
I'm confused. :mack:
This is not difficult. India's national hero is peace-loving and loveable Mohandas Gandhi. Iran's national hero is Mr. "Death to Israel and USA" Ayatollah Khomeini.
Gandhi:
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9247/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Khomeini:
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8702/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Questions?
SoonerProphet
3/6/2006, 10:07 PM
What is going to be the reply when China gives Pakistan the same deal.
SoonerProphet
3/6/2006, 10:10 PM
Russia and Iran.
picasso
3/6/2006, 10:10 PM
What is going to be the reply when China gives Pakistan the same deal.
thank you come again?
Okla-homey
3/6/2006, 10:16 PM
There are almost a billion Indians and they have the world's largest democracy. They have never fired a shot in anger at the US or an American, evar.
They were our ally in WWI, WWII, Korea and assorted UN actions.
I figure they deserve nukes to protect their democracy against the nuclear-armed totalitarian regimes with whom they share their continent.
usmc-sooner
3/6/2006, 10:18 PM
There are almost a billion Indians and they have the world's largest democracy. They have never fired a shot in anger at the US or an American, evar.
They were our ally in WWI, WWII, Korea and assorted UN actions.
I figure they deserve nukes to protect their democracy against the nuclear-armed totalitarian regimes with whom they share their continent.
yep
what's to be confused about
SoonerProphet
3/6/2006, 10:20 PM
thank you come again?
no, that was my college algebra ta at the physical science building.
picasso
3/6/2006, 10:23 PM
no, that was my college algebra ta at the physical science building.
"this being Milt.....pretty heavy eh duuuude?"
SoonerProphet
3/6/2006, 10:31 PM
"this being Milt.....pretty heavy eh duuuude?"
Bachelor Party is comedic genius.
JohnnyMack
3/6/2006, 10:32 PM
There are almost a billion Indians and they have the world's largest democracy. They have never fired a shot in anger at the US or an American, evar.
They were our ally in WWI, WWII, Korea and assorted UN actions.
I figure they deserve nukes to protect their democracy against the nuclear-armed totalitarian regimes with whom they share their continent.
I guess it means nukes are OK as long as we can make a buck off you and are pretty sure you won't sell us out for your own interests, otherwise, no nukes. Right?
Oldnslo
3/6/2006, 10:38 PM
I guess it means nukes are OK as long as we can make a buck off you and are pretty sure you won't sell us out for your own interests, otherwise, no nukes. Right?
I guess I'm not seeing the problem. Do you think China and Russia aren't arming their associate states?
Okla-homey
3/6/2006, 10:39 PM
I guess it means nukes are OK as long as we can make a buck off you and are pretty sure you won't sell us out for your own interests, otherwise, no nukes. Right?
Now you're catching on. But there's just a smidge more to it. Its also important to be confident based on the last 100 years or so of world history the nuke-possessing state is very unlikely to use them on us. That's one of those United States "national strategic objective" dealios.
Other than that, you got it.
usmc-sooner
3/6/2006, 11:12 PM
I guess it means nukes are OK as long as we can make a buck off you and are pretty sure you won't sell us out for your own interests, otherwise, no nukes. Right?
if you haven't learned self preservation, then without the rest of us dragging you along you would have been selected for extinction
mdklatt
3/6/2006, 11:23 PM
India (one of the nations most rapidly emerging markets) is allowed to continue its production of nuclear weapons. They've thumbed their noses at the NNPT for years and no one does anything about it.
Iran is considered a threat to the world so they get UN sanctions and the threat of invasion.
I'm confused. :mack:
India already has nuclear weapons. Iran (we hope) does not. India has not threatened to unilaterally make Israel (or anybody else) glow in the dark. Iran has. India does not refer to us as the Great Satan. Iran does.
I think the "Iran problem" is confined to the heads of the government and not the Iranian people, but no way in hell should the Koran-thumpers in charge be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I don't think they're crazy enough to use them, but they sure wouldn't have any qualms about giving them to a terrorist group like Hezbollah. And it would be a lot easier to weaponize a nuke to be deliverd by truck bomb than by missile or aircraft.
What should we do about India's violation of the NPT?
opksooner
3/6/2006, 11:28 PM
India will use their nukes to kill other Muslims, like Israel......
"Don't start no ****, there won't be any ****!"
Ardmore_Sooner
3/6/2006, 11:30 PM
thank you come again?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/C-apu.gif/180px-C-apu.gif
OklahomaTuba
3/6/2006, 11:39 PM
I wonder JM, can you name any terrorist groups that India is supporting at the moment?
Never mind that Iran is supporting AQ, hezzbollah, hamas, and aiding in the murder of US troops in Iraq at the moment.
But then again, this is all common sense.
SicEmBaylor
3/7/2006, 12:21 AM
India (one of the nations most rapidly emerging markets) is allowed to continue its production of nuclear weapons. They've thumbed their noses at the NNPT for years and no one does anything about it.
Iran is considered a threat to the world so they get UN sanctions and the threat of invasion.
I'm confused. :mack:
You're confused why? You're confused over there being a difference between a stable democracy aquiring nuclear technology which they have never and in no way proliferated or shared with 3rd parties especially terrorist organizations, and a known terrorist state which support terrorists around the globe, has a clearly unstable president, and threatened not only peace in the region but the security of us and our closest allies?
Are you that blind to the difference between the government of Iran and India or are simply an advocate for across the board de-nuclearization?
SicEmBaylor
3/7/2006, 12:23 AM
I guess it means nukes are OK as long as we can make a buck off you and are pretty sure you won't sell us out for your own interests, otherwise, no nukes. Right?
I think what it means is that there is a difference between a stable democracy who has never in any way threatened the security of these United States and a state that actively threatens the US, our interests, and our allies.
This is no different than yousaying because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons then Britian shouldn't either (which they do).
SicEmBaylor
3/7/2006, 12:25 AM
What should we do about India's violation of the NPT?
Were they signatories to the NPT?
usmc-sooner
3/7/2006, 12:27 AM
You're confused why? You're confused over there being a difference between a stable democracy aquiring nuclear technology which they have never and in no way proliferated or shared with 3rd parties especially terrorist organizations, and a known terrorist state which support terrorists around the globe, has a clearly unstable president, and threatened not only peace in the region but the security of us and our closest allies?
Are you that blind to the difference between the government of Iran and India or are simply an advocate for across the board de-nuclearization?
I think he's just confused in general. Unless he's making the retarded *** point that the nuts in mid east should be allowed to arm themselves with nukes
kinda par for the coarse
critical_phil
3/7/2006, 01:01 AM
Khomeini:
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1125/ayetolla3yw.jpg
Questions?
fixed.
homerSimpsonsBrain
3/7/2006, 02:40 AM
Personally, I'm alot more concerned about Pakistan having nukes than either India or Iran. India is using them to hold off the Chinese and the Pakistani's. Iran doesnt have them and wont be getting them soon. Pakistan has them and Musharif is almost as popular as the Shah was in Iran about 1978 or so. We're one nutjob from a real problem if he gets the boot.
batonrougesooner
3/7/2006, 02:42 AM
India (one of the nations most rapidly emerging markets) is allowed to continue its production of nuclear weapons. They've thumbed their noses at the NNPT for years and no one does anything about it.
Iran is considered a threat to the world so they get UN sanctions and the threat of invasion.
I'm confused. :mack:
Why are you confused? You explained it rather well.
The policy makes sense to me.
India is an emerging civilized economy and culture.
Iran is ruled by Muslim extremists who want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them.
SoonerProphet
3/7/2006, 09:47 AM
While I'll agree with this deal as a counterweight to Chinese influence in the region. The notion around the democratic peace theory as making it hunky dory is a bunch of bunk nonsense. Nobody can predict the intentions of India in the future. They are as likely to exert their own national interest in the future and have been some what frosty to the US in the past.
This is all an aside to the simple fact that the NPT Treaty is now as worthless as the paper it is printed on...as if it really meant anything either. Not to mention blatant hypocrisy, but that is the realities of international politics, just don't whine like a bunch of bitches when Russia strikes a deal with the Persians or the Chinese do the same with Pakistan.
mdklatt
3/7/2006, 10:07 AM
Were they signatories to the NPT?
My mistake. What are we going to do about the US violations of the NPT? India never signed the treaty, but we did. I think we're violating it by assisting them with their nuclear program now. If major powers start ignoring the NPT to help their "friends" it's going to become a worthless piece of paper. Of course, it probably already is a worthless piece of paper. If Russia or China decide to help Iran we can no longer wave the NPT in their face.
I don't recall India ever holding a bunch of American citizens captive for over a year.
SoonerProphet
3/7/2006, 10:17 AM
I don't recall India ever holding a bunch of American citizens captive for over a year.
Or the US supporting a Shah like character in New Delhi or overthrowing an elected leader like Mossadeq. Wierd how well folks can get along when you stay out of their political business.
OklahomaTuba
3/7/2006, 10:18 AM
This wasn't a weapons agreement I don't believe, so the NPT wouldn't apply would it? The line seems very thin.
Anywhoo, remember when Clinton gave North Korea the same deal?
http://img.thefreedictionary.com/wiki/e/e5/Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg
Good times.
OklahomaTuba
3/7/2006, 10:23 AM
I don't recall India ever holding a bunch of American citizens captive for over a year.
Again, the Iran supporters on this board can bitch all they want. It doesn't change the fact that Iran supports worldwide terrorism and the people responsible for 9-11, and is aiding murder of our troops in Iraq, and saying they will blow another country off the face of the earth every chance they get.
Is India doing such a thing? Again, its common sense.
OklahomaTuba
3/7/2006, 10:31 AM
Or the US supporting a Shah like character in New Delhi or overthrowing an elected leader like Mossadeq. Wierd how well folks can get along when you stay out of their political business.
Yup.
Chuchhill and Eisenhower were dumbasses and didn't have a clue.
:rolleyes:
SoonerProphet
3/7/2006, 10:31 AM
it will allow india to produce 6 to 10 additional nukes a year and violates the NPT proscription against aiding another nation's nuclear-weapons program, seeing how they'll be able to divert fuel away from civilian use to military use. Nor does it allow inspectors to monitor military reserved reactors and will require the repeal of the US Nonproliferation Act.
I agree that it is a sharp tool to use against China, but how does it advance our national security interests...mangos?
SoonerProphet
3/7/2006, 10:32 AM
Yup.
Chuchhill and Eisenhower were dumbasses and didn't have a clue.
:rolleyes:
Seeing what it got us, I'd say you are spot on...dumbasses indeed.
OklahomaTuba
3/7/2006, 10:35 AM
I agree that it is a sharp tool to use against China, but how does it advance our national security interests...mangos?Keeps China, Russia and Pakistan in check IMO.
We will need a friend like India if and when China starts starving for oil to keep feeding its economic growth, and decides to start taking it away from us.
SoonerProphet
3/7/2006, 10:37 AM
Keeps China, Russia and Pakistan in check IMO.
We will need a friend like India if and when China starts starving for oil to keep feeding its economic growth, and decides to start taking it away from us.
I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are shaking in their boots.
OklahomaTuba
3/7/2006, 10:54 AM
I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are shaking in their boots.
Thus proving that real democracies are generally more peaceful and contribute more to world peace than tyrannies do.
mdklatt
3/7/2006, 10:55 AM
This wasn't a weapons agreement I don't believe, so the NPT wouldn't apply would it? The line seems very thin.
From what I've read, since India is not a signatory to the NPT we're not supposed to aid their nuclear program in any way. However, according to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4764826.stm), France has already made a similar deal with India and the IAEA supports the US efforts.
The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, welcomed the deal, calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime".
France, which signed a similar deal of its own with India last month, said the accord would help fight climate change and non-proliferation efforts.
KaiserSooner
3/7/2006, 10:55 AM
a stable democracy who has never in any way threatened...the US, our interests, and our allies.
Considering tensions over Kashmir, I tend to think India having nukes is something of a threat, especially to Pakistan, a supposed ally.
That said though, I generally trust India over Iran and Pakistan when it comes to the nukes department.
OklahomaTuba
3/7/2006, 11:07 AM
Well, they have been a threat for a while then...
India's Nuclear Arsenal
Though India has not made any official statements about the size of it nuclear arsenal, the NRDC estimates that India has a stockpile of approximately 30-35 nuclear warheads and claims that India is producing additional nuclear materials
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/
KaiserSooner
3/7/2006, 11:10 AM
No kidding. And so has Pakistan, though not as long as India. Anytime a highly charged geo-political issue, such as Kashmir, is infused with nukes, it's a threat, imo.
Okla-homey
3/7/2006, 05:56 PM
Frankly, I'm more comfortable with the Indians being a nuclear power than the sappy French. That "highly professional" French military could lose one and wouldn't even notice if it happened during the summer vacation season.
Apart from the Saudi Air Force, I've never been around a more bush league operation than the French AF...and those guys have lots of nukes.
If I were the King of France, I'd bust up all my nukes because my tres stupide AF would probably blow themselves up if they ever tried to use them.
JohnnyMack
3/8/2006, 05:25 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11724558/
Shocking development. :rolleyes:
SicEmBaylor
3/8/2006, 06:01 PM
No kidding. And so has Pakistan, though not as long as India. Anytime a highly charged geo-political issue, such as Kashmir, is infused with nukes, it's a threat, imo.
Right, but I think we're banking on a couple of things. 1)The Indians won't be the first to fire a nuke over Kashmir and 2)The Kashmier issue in and of itself doesn't represent an overwhelming threat to American national security.
In other words, the threat of India using nukes against Kashmir is not equal to the threat of Pakistan continuing to proliferate their nuclear technology to Islamic jihadists and those who intend to use that technology against our assets or us directly.
SoonerProphet
8/27/2008, 06:39 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/NSG_Austria_hints_at_softening_stand/articleshow/3414105.cms
OklahomaTuba
8/27/2008, 10:50 PM
I wonder if JM is still confused about why Iran is so bad???
I suspect we will see more news of this kind with Pakistan in such a state of flux.
tommieharris91
8/27/2008, 10:54 PM
I wonder if JM is still confused about why Iran is so bad???
I suspect we will see more news of this kind with Pakistan in such a state of flux.
Iraq-Pakistan border joke in 3...2...
badger
8/28/2008, 09:08 AM
I thought India's purpose for nuclear power was for... well, power. You know, C. Montgomery Burns hiring Homer Simpson for Sector 7-G with Lenny and Carl as his supervisor while Frank "Grimey" Grimes goes nuts at Homer's incompetence. Oh, and Burns has a dogs as his executive vice president a ghey (NTTAWWT) assistant named Smithers that loves Burns and there's a giant bear with a camera inside to spy on the executive office.
THAT type of nuclear power - the type that will create a three-eyed orange fish named "Blinky," not one that'll lead nutjobs like Sideshow Bob to nuke everything if television doesn't go away.
(after someone mentioned the Apu quote, that was what was in my head)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.