Today a new agreement between the US and India was announced about nuclear policy.
Quote by News Article on MSNBC.comNEW DELHI, India - Reversing decades of U.S. policy, President Bush ushered India into the world's exclusive nuclear club Thursday with a landmark agreement to share nuclear reactors, fuel and expertise with this energy-starved nation in return for its acceptance of international safeguards.
While I understand the need for energy in many countries including India that calls for nuclear power, this news brings up the ongoing question about nuclear weapons...as in which countries have them and which countries are "allowed" to have them. The controversy exists because India is not one of the countries that has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
By the terms of the non-proliferation treaty, only 5 countries (US, Russia, France, Britain, China) are allowed to have nuclear weapons but they are supposedly committed to: "nonproliferation and disarmament."
Personally I don't take issue with the spread of nuclear technology for the use of power and if Indians will benefit from the increase of energy resources, I'd have no problems with this new agreement.
What bothers me more is the terms of the original treaty...is it really for the benefit of the world at large that 5
countries are the only ones technically permitted to have nuclear weapons? (Ignoring the fact that many countries
violate the treaty...including India)
It seems to be merely a case of might makes right...
Also...I am not convinced that even the countries that have signed the treaty are really committed to
disarmament...despite some actions on the part of the US and Russia, not much has really happened in recent
years.
I'd be interested in hearing what people think about this new agreement between the US and India (good for
world/India?) and also whether the original non-proliferation treaty should be revised or discarded altogether.
Should having nuclear weapons be legal for any country?