Great article,
source link at : http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5603449

The central question being:

The Economist said:

North Korea has broken every rule of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and boasts proudly of its bomb. Iran claims to have no use for one, yet demands the “right” to pursue dangerous nuclear fuel-making technologies—as others may do in future unless creative solutions are found to deflect them—that could be abused for weapons-making. This week America and others were insisting at the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran not be allowed to bend the anti-nuclear rules out of shape to further what are assumed to be its weapons a...

Great article,
source link at : http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5603449

The central question being:

The Economist said:

North Korea has broken every rule of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and boasts proudly of its bomb. Iran claims to have no use for one, yet demands the “right” to pursue dangerous nuclear fuel-making technologies—as others may do in future unless creative solutions are found to deflect them—that could be abused for weapons-making. This week America and others were insisting at the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran not be allowed to bend the anti-nuclear rules out of shape to further what are assumed to be its weapons ambitions (see article). So why does Mr Bush propose doing just that for already nuclear-armed India?

India may not have signed the NPT, but America has. In doing so, it promised not to help other countries with their nuclear-weapons tinkering. It also pioneered the reinforcing principle that only countries that have all their nuclear facilities under international safeguards (India doesn't now and won't in future) should benefit from trade in civilian nuclear technology. If countries were going to sign the NPT and renounce nuclear weapons themselves, they needed assurance that as many others as possible would follow suit. To encourage them, treaty rights—help in enjoying the benefits of civilian nuclear power—were withheld from those that shrugged off or ignored its obligations.

All...

India may not have signed the NPT, but America has. In doing so, it promised not to help other countries with their nuclear-weapons tinkering. It also pioneered the reinforcing principle that only countries that have all their nuclear facilities under international safeguards (India doesn't now and won't in future) should benefit from trade in civilian nuclear technology. If countries were going to sign the NPT and renounce nuclear weapons themselves, they needed assurance that as many others as possible would follow suit. To encourage them, treaty rights—help in enjoying the benefits of civilian nuclear power—were withheld from those that shrugged off or ignored its obligations.

Allowing nuclear trade with India breaks that bargain in a particularly damaging way.
[...]
By allowing it to import nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors, America will be directly easing the bottlenecks in its weapons programme (bizarrely, also agreeing to keep up fuel supplies even if India breaks America's other anti-proliferation laws, as some of its companies have in the past). Worse, India's experimental fast-breeder reactor programme, ideally suited to produce plutonium for warheads though previously claimed to be for civilian purposes, is to be exempted from all safeguards. That will allow India in future to produce scores of weapons a year, not just a handful.

Then add insult to injury. Not only is nuclear-armed India being offered all of the civilian benefits available to countries that have accepted the NPT's anti-nuclear restrictions. It has also accepted few, if any, of the real obligations of the five official nuclear powers recognised by the treaty, America, Russia, China, Britain and France. All at least signed the treaty banning all nuclear tests; India declined. All have ended the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons purposes (only China has yet to say so publicly); India flatly refused America's request to do likewise.

India, being next door to Russia/China is in no position to threaten anyone without major risks to self. There are certainly some concerning issues, especially with their relationship with Pakistan. But there's no evidence to suggest that they're a danger to other countries or have religious or otherwise ambitions. Iran and N. Korea - that's a different story.

If Iran is allowed to make a nuke and they proceed to attack Israel (stupid, but very likely) - there will definitely be a major counterattack without anyone worrying about the consequences of how US will react, or UN or EU or anyone else. At that point all bets will be off the table. In the end at least both of those countries wi...

India, being next door to Russia/China is in no position to threaten anyone without major risks to self. There are certainly some concerning issues, especially with their relationship with Pakistan. But there's no evidence to suggest that they're a danger to other countries or have religious or otherwise ambitions. Iran and N. Korea - that's a different story.

If Iran is allowed to make a nuke and they proceed to attack Israel (stupid, but very likely) - there will definitely be a major counterattack without anyone worrying about the consequences of how US will react, or UN or EU or anyone else. At that point all bets will be off the table. In the end at least both of those countries will be eliminated (for a lack of a better word) or worse (worldwide). That's why I don't believe trusting Iran on anything they say with their current leadership would be problemless and letting them be might get us to where the world got when Hitler was allowed to be. Even signing treaties isn't an answer, since Hitler signed a piece of paper with Stalin a year before he started the war. The result of trust was tens of millions of people dead. I think someone pointed out how deaths in Iraq were 'shocking'... well, they certainly are... although the WWII by comparison don't even have a word in English to describe them. And we have far superior weaponry now than we did in WWII... so if stopping a madman in Iran and Iraq prevents that - that's a better solution.

I think we'd agree on most points.
North Korea and Iran are in quite another league when it comes to being problematic in a nuclear perspective, compared to India.

What I think is worrysome, is the the seemingly randomness the US professes when it comes to its nuclear 'strategy'.

Breaking the treaties that are in place right now, or applying them in a non-consistent way, give other nations (read: Iran, North Korea, China, ...) much reason and incentive to break them also and act accordingly.
Especially troublesome right now, when this discussion is heating up.

Furthermore, you are right about the troublesome relation between India and Pakistan, which in my opinion, heats up this discussi...

I think we'd agree on most points.
North Korea and Iran are in quite another league when it comes to being problematic in a nuclear perspective, compared to India.

What I think is worrysome, is the the seemingly randomness the US professes when it comes to its nuclear 'strategy'.

Breaking the treaties that are in place right now, or applying them in a non-consistent way, give other nations (read: Iran, North Korea, China, ...) much reason and incentive to break them also and act accordingly.
Especially troublesome right now, when this discussion is heating up.

Furthermore, you are right about the troublesome relation between India and Pakistan, which in my opinion, heats up this discussion.

And for the "not worrying about a counterattack on Iran". Don't say too soon no one wouldn't be worried. I'm one of those who would be worried.

And for your last comment, the WTC surprise attacks may have been more shocking, with an instant huge death toll.
But the death toll in Iraq, and not at least the civilian/military ratio of that death toll (I can't give you the hard numbers right now), are also quite shocking to me.

WTC deaths were not so much shocking due to their quantity, but how the whole thing played out. Let's not forget that on any given day the great late two towers housed as many as 50,000 people, so things could've been much worse than they were. The Iraqi deaths are part of a war, WTC were not. I'm not trying to imply that one kind of worse or better than the other, but that's why war sucks - people die. But, I'm afraid, if we don't finish this properly - the shock element due to deaths will only increase and dramatically so.

As as for counterattack on Iran... I didn't mean to say that wouldn't be worrysome, I simply meant that if in the past Israel was withholding its military might due...

WTC deaths were not so much shocking due to their quantity, but how the whole thing played out. Let's not forget that on any given day the great late two towers housed as many as 50,000 people, so things could've been much worse than they were. The Iraqi deaths are part of a war, WTC were not. I'm not trying to imply that one kind of worse or better than the other, but that's why war sucks - people die. But, I'm afraid, if we don't finish this properly - the shock element due to deaths will only increase and dramatically so.

As as for counterattack on Iran... I didn't mean to say that wouldn't be worrysome, I simply meant that if in the past Israel was withholding its military might due to US holding the reigns - if Iran attacks - I don't think Israeli's will continue to listen to anyone... and rightfully so.