US President George Bush got a victory today on his first visit to India, securing a landmark nuclear energy agreement that he said could help ease energy prices. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the deal, which will open most Indian reactors to international inspections and provide the nation with US nuclear technology, during a joint news conference after meeting privately to hammer out details.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=174616392&p=y746y7x98 Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

826 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 16 years ago by KikiPeepers

Do you think it was a bad idea for President Bush to make this nuclear energy agreement with India?
US President George Bush got a victory today on his first visit to India, securing a landmark nuclear energy agreement that he said could help ease energy prices. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the deal, which will open most Indian reactors to international inspections and provide the nation with US nuclear technology, during a joint news conference after meeting privately to hammer out details.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/sto...


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 40)

Bottom Last Post

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 2:16:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think it sounds terrible, but I saw Colin Powell on Leno and he said it was a great idea. I admire Powell, but I don't agree.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:00:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think it sounds wonderful! Not only will this aid India GREATLY, but it will keep India from developing nuclear weapons. I think this was a fair trade.

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:08:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 3/4/2006 3:00:54 PM Txfireman wrote:
Not only will this aid India GREATLY, but it will keep India from developing nuclear weapons.

Uh, India already has nuclear weapons...
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:09:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 3/4/2006 3:08:50 PM burnteffigy wrote:
On 3/4/2006 3:00:54 PM Txfireman wrote: Not only will this aid India GREATLY, but it will keep India from developing nuclear weapons. Uh, India already has nuclear weapons...

Nope, that would be Pakistan.

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:10:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
No, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:13:44 PM EST (GMT-5)
Sure?? i'm pretty sure it's only Pakistan,

And that that have been the only reason India has not attacked Pakistan in the past. considering all the tension between those two countries.

But if Inda is a nuclear power it wont really be dangerous to give them any civilian nuclear power.

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:15:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:16:29 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 3/4/2006 3:13:44 PM trainwrec wrote:
Sure?? i'm pretty sure it's only Pakistan, And that that have been the only reason India has not attacked Pakistan in the past. considering all the tension between those two countries. But if Inda is a nuclear power it wont really be dangerous to give them any civilian nuclear power.

India does have nuclear weapons hence the whole worry over Kashmir

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:19:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
Hmm, ok, then why would it be a problem that they gain a ebtter technology for civilian purposes?? cant really say that is bad. since they already have nuclear weapons.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:19:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
Are you sure? I know they have done many tests in the past, test allegedly for "peace" proposes (yeah, whatever) but I don't I'm not sure if they have an arsenal yet.

Even so, having international inspections will do WONDERS to keep the potental WMDs down.

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:20:01 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't know enough about this deal one way or the other to make a comment on it, I was just pointing out that India already does have nuclear weapons.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:20:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think its a great idea, it draws us closer to them and we need closer allies in that region.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:22:00 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 3/4/2006 3:19:43 PM Txfireman wrote:
Are you sure? I know they have done many tests in the past, test allegedly for "peace" proposes (yeah, whatever) but I don't I'm not sure if they have an arsenal yet. Even so, having international inspections will do WONDERS to keep the potental WMDs down.

Regardless of what the stated purpose of the weapons are, they have already developed nuclear weapons. As far as whether or not they have an "arsenal," according to Wikipedia, India has 40-50 nuclear warheads.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:24:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
If they have 40-50 nuclear weapons, that would be enough to make sure nobody tries any sh*t with them. even one nuclear missile would do that.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:27:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 3/4/2006 3:24:12 PM trainwrec wrote:
If they have 40-50 nuclear weapons, that would be enough to make sure nobody tries any sh*t with them. even one nuclear missile would do that.

That would be true, but countries on both sides of them have the same weapons.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 3:29:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
And if both of them have it, that makes sure neither of them tries to do anything, pretty much like Nato and Warsawa.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 4:18:02 PM EST (GMT-5)
That's why the kashmir crisis is so dangerous both sides have nukes it's like a mini cold war
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Saturday 3/4/06 - 4:20:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
True, but you can be pretty sure neither of them actually do anything serious.

But that aint the question, the question is about civilian uses.

16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 3/23/06 - 5:20:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 4/6/06 - 10:12:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
Of course it's a bad idea, and it's horrible timing too, how can you just spit in the face of the NPT and say "hey, these guys are friends, it's ok", and then still try to fight a war in Iraq based on the belief that people shouldn't develop Nukes illegally, and then trying to get Iran to disarm.


This whole plan is so unbelievably hypocritical, it damages America's crediblity and will have the rest of the world going "well, India got to do it!".

16 yrs ago - Saturday 5/6/06 - 11:57:16 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 3/4/2006 3:19:43 PM Txfireman wrote:
Are you sure? I know they have done many tests in the past, test allegedly for "peace" proposes (yeah, whatever) but I don't I'm not sure if they have an arsenal yet. Even so, having international inspections will do WONDERS to keep the potental WMDs down.

You don't believe they should be punished for breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

India developed nuclear weapons despite a ban new countries developing them.

according to the treaty, they shouldn't be getting help now.

16 yrs ago - Saturday 5/6/06 - 1:11:08 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't care. If he thinks it is a good idea, then good for him.
16 yrs ago - Saturday 5/6/06 - 2:24:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/6/2006 11:57:17 AM Tasdavil wrote:
You don't believe they should be punished for breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

Who, India, or America? Either way, No, I don't believe either should, for three reasons:

First of all, India never signed the NNPT.

Second, the Treaty allows for a peaceful use of nuclear technology, which is what India is (offically) doing.

And Third, I believe the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bullsh*t. It is the international version of the Rich getting richer and the poor staying poor.

16 yrs ago - Sunday 5/7/06 - 3:09:25 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/6/2006 2:24:35 PM TxFireman wrote:
On 5/6/2006 11:57:17 AM Tasdavil wrote: You don't believe they should be punished for breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Who, India, or America? Either way, No, I don't believe either should, for three reasons: First of all, India never signed the NNPT. Second, the Treaty allows for a peaceful use of nuclear technology, which is what India is (offically) doing. And Third, I believe the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bullsh*t. It is the international version of the Rich getting richer and the poor staying poor.

Yeah, it seems you are right. The only three states not to sign it were India, Pakistan and Israel.

"Peaceful use" means nuclear energy not nuclear weapons.

If you don't like the treaty, what do you propose? Let anyone get nukes? Not every country is as stable as the current nuclear powers.

16 yrs ago - Sunday 5/7/06 - 3:10:39 AM EST (GMT-5)
Also, from what I gather, the idea of the NNPT is to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons but to also slowly decrease the stockpiles of current countries. But then again, that probably wont work. Although I think the U.S has been slowly decreasing their numbers. And Russia has been getting rid of theirs pretty fast.

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 40)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Do you prefer croissants or bagels?

2 What does your money do?

3 Can you count to 100 in roman numerals?

4 Do you take advantage of people?

5 Do you agree with Comedy Central's decision to censor the image and name of Mohammed in Episode 201 of South Park?

6 Have you ever been the same thing for Halloween more than once?

7 Which aspect of Christmas is more important?

8 Strawberries or raspberries : which do you prefer ?

9 Are pigs a ``wonderful, magical`` animal?

10 If you had a genetic disease, would you reproduce?

More Questions
 
Edit