Friday, July 28, 2006
Success! Loopholes found in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty!
CNN.com - U.S. House OKs India nuclear deal - Jul 26, 2006
"
The approval vote was 359-68 after lawmakers rejected amendments that aimed to put limits on India's nuclear weapons program and were proposed by critics concerned the deal would harm nonproliferation goals.
. . . . . . . .
The deal would allow nuclear-armed India to buy American nuclear reactors and fuel for the first time in more than 30 years, despite the fact it has still not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
. . . . . . . .
Pouring 'nuclear fuel'
Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, head of a bipartisan nonproliferation task force, lambasted the deal as pouring "nuclear fuel on the fire of an India-Pakistan nuclear arms race" because it would allow New Delhi to expand its nuclear weapons production to upward of 50 bombs a year from seven.
During several hours of debate, the House, led by President George W. Bush's Republican Party, soundly rejected an amendment that would have forced India to halt fissile material production as a condition of the nuclear deal.
The House also rejected an amendment that would forbid India from capitalizing on a new ability to buy U.S. nuclear fuel by diverting all its domestically produced uranium for weapons use. India now uses half of its domestic uranium for energy production and half for weapons, lawmakers said.
. . . . . . . .
Proponents [of the amendment] said requiring India to halt production of weapons-related fissile material would help ensure U.S. technology aided India's energy production, not bomb-making.
As a signatory to the NPT, the United States is obligated not to help India and other states advance their nuclear weapons programs.
[emphasis mine]
. . . . . . . .
"
Clever. See, we're not actually HELPING them build more weapons. We're just selling them a whole lot more nuclear material for energy use -- that way, they can use all of THEIR OWN nuclear material for weapons, and use OURS for energy. It's a win-win.
But wait -- why are we helping them, again? Aren't we supposed to hate and despise countries who refuse to sign the NPT (except Israel, of course -- but that goes without saying)? Doesn't that make them a "rogue state"? Shouldn't we be punishing them -- agreeing to help them with their energy needs ON THE CONDITION that they sign the NPT, stop making nuclear weapons and disarm their existing nukes?
Hm. Oh well. Guess nobody cares.
"
The approval vote was 359-68 after lawmakers rejected amendments that aimed to put limits on India's nuclear weapons program and were proposed by critics concerned the deal would harm nonproliferation goals.
. . . . . . . .
The deal would allow nuclear-armed India to buy American nuclear reactors and fuel for the first time in more than 30 years, despite the fact it has still not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
. . . . . . . .
Pouring 'nuclear fuel'
Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, head of a bipartisan nonproliferation task force, lambasted the deal as pouring "nuclear fuel on the fire of an India-Pakistan nuclear arms race" because it would allow New Delhi to expand its nuclear weapons production to upward of 50 bombs a year from seven.
During several hours of debate, the House, led by President George W. Bush's Republican Party, soundly rejected an amendment that would have forced India to halt fissile material production as a condition of the nuclear deal.
The House also rejected an amendment that would forbid India from capitalizing on a new ability to buy U.S. nuclear fuel by diverting all its domestically produced uranium for weapons use. India now uses half of its domestic uranium for energy production and half for weapons, lawmakers said.
. . . . . . . .
Proponents [of the amendment] said requiring India to halt production of weapons-related fissile material would help ensure U.S. technology aided India's energy production, not bomb-making.
As a signatory to the NPT, the United States is obligated not to help India and other states advance their nuclear weapons programs.
[emphasis mine]
. . . . . . . .
"
Clever. See, we're not actually HELPING them build more weapons. We're just selling them a whole lot more nuclear material for energy use -- that way, they can use all of THEIR OWN nuclear material for weapons, and use OURS for energy. It's a win-win.
But wait -- why are we helping them, again? Aren't we supposed to hate and despise countries who refuse to sign the NPT (except Israel, of course -- but that goes without saying)? Doesn't that make them a "rogue state"? Shouldn't we be punishing them -- agreeing to help them with their energy needs ON THE CONDITION that they sign the NPT, stop making nuclear weapons and disarm their existing nukes?
Hm. Oh well. Guess nobody cares.
| |
