I think it’s reasonable to believe that countrires’ adherence to a treaty at least suggests that they agree with its basic tenets.
By that measure, here is the number of countries, apart from India, who believe that New Delhi should be able to do whatever it wants with its nuclear program:
Zero.
How do we know? Well, only three countries are not NPT member-states. And we know Pakistan is decidedly not a fan of India’s nuclear arsenal. I don’t recall seeing any commentary from Israel on the matter, but you get the point.
Of course, we could well be adding the US and A to that number if the administration gets its way…
The number of countries that think that the US should build new nuclear weapons or that China should continue to add more nuclear bombs is…
Z E R O
Yet the US and China do what they want to do. Same goes for the UK, France and Russia.
Why?
Might is right and India now has the might. Those who want to contstrain India can now pound sand. India will disarm when the US, UK, France, China and Russia do.
What’s fair for one is fair for all.
RT: Yes, this is a point you have made rather…consistently.
However, I think the point of debate is that what may be fair for all, is in the best interest of none.
I have read your counter to this argument, essentially that a small number of Indian weapons pales in comparison to the stockpiles of the US, Russia, etc.
However, wouldn’t you agree that the risk of a nuclear conflaguration is more a function of the number of countries posessing nuclear weapons, not the number of weapons themselves?
Yes, welcome to the club. Sit down and have a drink.
I think you assume too much – nukes don’t provide near the security they used to. Nukes will do nothing to solve India’s basic security problems.
And I agree that disarmament needs to happen, but until the day comes that total verification can be ensured, disarmament is a pipe-dream. And I doubt that day will ever come. It’s akin, in my mind, to banning firearms in the United States – it’s impossible to ensure you’ve got them all.
But seriously, welcome to the club. Here’s a toast to hoping your shiny 20th-century toys will just leech your GDP for all eternity instead of destroying your civilization.
You are confusing things though. It doesn’t matter what is fair, it matters that the United States is obligated by treaty to not provide nuclear assistance to India.
Could some please post the draft law from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? It is not on the SFRC website and Thomas also doesn’t have it.
JKELLY
So what? The US has already violated the NPT’s spirit and perhaps the letter so many times (think Article VI). China has also violated the NPT several times with its documented help to Pakistan. What happened to it?
The lesson – NPT violations are okay when they are done by the powerful nations.
—-
Captain_Canuck,
The US and the NPT-5 should think of such dangers before sticking to their obscene nuclear posture today. If it is universally accepted that more countries having nukes is such a severe danger to the world, then let the P-5 disarm or at least stop giving such a central position to nukes in their security doctrines. Stop deploying missiles and stop making more bombs.
“However, wouldn’t you agree that the risk of a nuclear conflaguration is more a function of the number of countries posessing nuclear weapons, not the number of weapons themselves?”
The primary threat today is that non-state actors get a hold of nuclear weapons or materials. As such the number of sites storing nuclear weapons is of just as much if not more concern as the number of countries holding these weapons.
With Europe’s ongoing process of political and economic union, the UK and France present a better opportunity for reducing the number of countries with nukes than either China or India.