Friday, July 22, 2005
Bush Officials Defend India Nuke Deal
My post over at Miblog Weighs a Ton on the India nuclear deal sparked some pretty lively discussion, with most commenters defending the deal. I still say it's a terrible idea. Wednesday's Post ran an article laying out the government's thinking behind the deal.
First and foremost, it looks like a pay-off to US arms manufacturers: "Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expected India to start purchasing as much as $5 billion worth of conventional military equipment as a result of the deal."
Second, the deal is meant as a counterbalance in the region against the power of China: "Pentagon officials said they considered many of the potential sales, including anti-submarine patrol aircraft that could spot Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean and Aegis radar for Indian destroyers operating in the strategic Straits of Malaka, as useful for monitoring the Chinese military."
Do those sound like adequate benefits to US interests? They don't to me. Especially when given the costs, which include the further proliferation of dangerous weapons, and abandonment of decades of nuclear-control policies.
I ask defenders of this policy two questions:
1) What message does this send other countries with nuclear ambitions?
2) Aren't there ways to "engage" a budding world power that don't involve giving the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
First and foremost, it looks like a pay-off to US arms manufacturers: "Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expected India to start purchasing as much as $5 billion worth of conventional military equipment as a result of the deal."
Second, the deal is meant as a counterbalance in the region against the power of China: "Pentagon officials said they considered many of the potential sales, including anti-submarine patrol aircraft that could spot Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean and Aegis radar for Indian destroyers operating in the strategic Straits of Malaka, as useful for monitoring the Chinese military."
Do those sound like adequate benefits to US interests? They don't to me. Especially when given the costs, which include the further proliferation of dangerous weapons, and abandonment of decades of nuclear-control policies.
I ask defenders of this policy two questions:
1) What message does this send other countries with nuclear ambitions?
2) Aren't there ways to "engage" a budding world power that don't involve giving the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
