Do you think India can be trusted with nuclear know-how.......?
484206
The only country to have ever used nuclear weapons to kill people is the USA. So I would trust every other country except the USA
134301
more than likely.if they do they should nuke and nerve gas them till they glow.these people dont want nuclear power for energy.they want to make dirty weapons,and with the rumour of russian missile technology already in the country,it would just be a matter of time before they strike at israel or cities in europe or anywhere else for that matter.the west needs to learn that diplomacy does not work these people.
228184
I have done some extensive study of Iran and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is a party to the NPT. The enrichment plant that Iran has built in no way violates their resonsibilities as a signer to the NPT. The centrifuges that everyone talks about are normal equipment for anyone who wants to enrich uranium. The same equipment is used to enrich uranium to 5% (for nuclear power) or 95% (for weapons). (The only other way used today is gaseous diffusion.)\n\nIn my opinion, Iran has every right (as granted to them by the NPT) to mine, mill, convert, enrich, burn, and (hopefully) reprocess uranium. Iran's facilities have been inspected repeatedly and absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapins program has ever been found there. \n\nThe United States was the country that gave Iran the technology and supplies (in the 1970s) for a nuclear power capability. I think that Iran should be allowed to continue with their nuclear program. If they do eventually develope nuclear weapons, it will be another sad day. But they will not be the only country with nukes in the middle east. As of now, it is known that Israel, and India have them also.\n\nIran has every right to nuclear power (no matter now much oil they have) and every aspect of its production. We must not deny them this right.
810116
Does not look like it.\n\nWe are on the brink of the collapse of the post 1989 efforts by the US to prevent nuclear proliferation.\n\nThere is no consensus over a strategy in the US over the issue, other than the declarations by all Politicians that proliferation will not be tolerated. \n\nAmerica rhetoric has been shown to be toothless. \nIn the case of Pakistan and India.\n\nIt is entirely possible that Pakistan either instigated or allowed 9/11 as a response to the puny sanctions imposed after their nuclear test. \nThe sanctions threatened the long term, Cold War, alliance between the US and Pakistan. \nAn alliance which blocked India's ability to invade and occupy Pakistan as a response to Pakistan's continual terrorist provocations in Kashmir.\n\n"See what we can do if you try to isolate us"\n\nPressure and carrots on N. Korea have proven equally futile.\n\nForce was not considered an option by policy makers, as action against the 1 million strong NK army with Seoul within artillery range would have ensured massive destruction \n\nThe only levers of power are held by China, which has chosen not to exercise them until after N K recent test.\n\nAnd then only to push them into the interminable six party talks. No doubt designed by the Chinese to further split the US allies and weak US influence in the region.\n\nBush's efforts in Iraq should in my view be seen as a belated attempt to use US force as a way to intimidate Iran into giving up ite nuclear ambitions.\n\nIraq was rightly seen as an easy target to make this point.\n\nIt worked on Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi.who admitted and ended his non-declared nuclear programme in 2003 \n\nIn Iraq the indiscriminate sectarian wanton destruction engaged in by those opposing US policy, has tied down the US army in a quagmire with no seeming option but to admit impotence and leave.\n\nThe US political establishment has still not taken a final decision on what it's stance will be\n\nHence the timely Question.\n\nIs there another possible solution?
393825
Because the nuclear powers got together decades ago and made a series of agreements prohibiting the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations, in an effort to prevent it from getting out of hand.  By preventing nukes from spreading willy-nilly around the world, and controlling the nuclear capable powers, it limited the number of nations that had to be convinced to destroy the nukes and remove the threat.\n\nOf course, the fallacy with that theory is that, "once the genie is out of the bottle, it is really tough to get it back in."  In other words, now that we know how to make nuclear weapons, we can't make that knowledge just vanish by destroying the nukes that currently exist, which is why there are still nuclear capable nations in the world.\n\nIran is one of many non-nuclear powers that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), stating for all to see that they would never, ever try to become nuclear capable, either by buying them from other countries or making them for themselves.\n\nNow they've been caught preparing to make fission weapons (there's no need to enrich uranium other than to make bombs -- don't let anyone fool you into believing that they need enriched uranium for power reactors -- that's just BS)) and are threatening to withdraw from the NPT so they can build bombs that they can use then on Israel and anyone who threatens them in any way.  Oh, and they can then sell them to Islamic extremists/terrorists to use on whomever they decide to hate that day (like the U.S.).\n\nDoesn't that just make your day?
372448
No, it wants to be just like the USA\n\nFunny how USA just signed an agreement to supply India with nuclear material
658316
i guess Iran has a right to build nuclear reactors and also if needed nuclear bombs! if US & other western powers can possess it, then why should they maintain a double-standards in askinm other countries from not having it. They let India have it simply bcos it serves their foreign interets. Iran should go ahead with it! FYI, I am an Indian.
160752
It is possible. After all they share the region with Israel which has developed a nuclear arsenal, hasn't signed the NPT and has attacked arab states not so long ago. A potential nuclear threat demands to be counterbalanced. Pakistan and India did so, when Pakistan developed nukes India followed suit immediately. There's also the US threat which has led to the occupation of two arab states: Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter was a former Iran ally against Israel.\nOn the other hand, Iran needs nuclear power. Oil reserves won't last forever and the nuclear technology needs time to mature and gradually take over the role of main power supply. This is also good policy because it allows for increased exports (theoretically) and thus make more countries depended on Iran oil (thus increase political influence without military support), given that most countries suffer from oposition to nuclear power.\nFact is: Iran has the right to develop and research nuclear energy under the NPT. Fact is: the USA hasn't provided any proof to sustain allegations that Iran's program is military. They only said that Iran -could- break the NPT, but any country that has an enrichment facility could (that includes UK and US) and this is no grounds to deny  nuclear power (it's sheer hypocrisy since it comes from a country that holds thousands of nukes ready to launch). There are other countries more 'dangeous'. Romania has a nuclear plant, it has an enrichment facility, a research facility with some world-renown nuclear physicists and even more, it has two uranium mines. They have a better chance at building nukes than Iran does, because Iran is mostly importing uranium. Basically, until US brings evidence that Iran is breaking the NPT, USA legally can't and shouldn't do anything. Then again the legality of a course of action never bothered the US.
48621
I think it is peacefull. they dont want to rich nuclear warhead. they just want to use it in generating electricity.\nwe all know that surely someday the oil of the earth will be finished. so after that how they can generating energy for them selves?\nlets be honest. they say : we dont need nuclear warhead. and they dont. lets think diffrent, if iran shouldnt have nuclear waehead so whay israel have a lot of them? why England and U.S have a lot of them? also pakistan and india?\nso if they have, why iran sholdnt have them?\ni mean if it is bad , it is bad for all, not for a special countries...
563739
Since both nations are nuclear capable, I fail to understand what exactly you mean by your question. \nIn overall military terms though, India has a slight edge in both, the conventional and nuclear war areas. India had a huge head start with nuclear testing so a lot of their data had been validated way back in 1974. They also have larger quantities of weapons-grade nuclear fuel and their stockpile of weapons is also larger... that is... they possess more warheads than Pakistan. The delivery systems of both countries are more or less on par with each other as of now. India has better R&D facilities than Pakistan and their effort is largely indigenous. Pakistan is ok in this area too, but it still depends on technology clandestinely procured from China and North Korea. The whole world knows that Pakistan is in the game of buying and selling nuke tech. Even their national hero, the revered Dr A Q Khan, proved himself to be nothing but a petty peddlar. Actually, he was just the scapegoat, the trades had the sanction of the Pakistan government. With tighter controls, Pakistan will find it tough to keep pace with development on its own. While Pakistan will probably never be able to recover fully from a nuclear strike, India.. being a larger country with a much more stable economy, can rebuild itself and get on with life. So India it is then.\nFor more analysis on the conventional war scenario, see some of my previous answers.
699885
yup........ why not\n\nbe optimistic\n\nhu ha india aaya india
292773
Useful for India but bad for America. There will be more outsourcing of American jobs, and sharing our nuclear technology with them is a big mistake.  Today they are our friends but what in about 5 years?  11 years ago we were boycotting India.  \n\nDid you know that the US supported Saddam in the past?
392943
hope full it want come to that, however the only way to insure that Iran's nuclear capability it completely erased is to use a small tactual nuke. it would be kinda a bunker buster and while it would re lase radiation it wouldnt be a huge amount.
256416
America has negotiated with every country on the planet at one time or the other. USSR, Korea, China, on and on... Have you ever heard of NATO, the United Nations, NAFTA?  \n\nNo; America is not afraid of India, it is just the opposite. They feel that India is a mature peaceful nation and is supporting the advancement of their nuclear programs.
594971
When India was pro-USSR, it got USA edgy and they started befriending Pakistan and selling them arms. Now these very weapons are in the hands of terrorits now and being used against US.\n\nUSSR is no longer in the scene as a Super Power and Uncle Sam realises the potential India has as a fast developing economic super power.\n\nNeed I say more?
261152
Yes, if they can manage a nuclear power plant safely. Even if we (the 'free' world) do not trust them, we are not the world's police and until the actually are a threat that we must defend against, then let em do what they want.
335881
Let's see...U.S.,share,nuclear,India. Scares me to think of spreading the love with anybody.Think,people,every country we try to help or deal with has an agenda.They can shake hands and sign peace treaties all day long .It means nothing.Nuclear power is an agent for power.Do not think for one minute that India or any other country would not sell their soul for an opportunity to have the power of control.It's just what we have turned into as a free world.Money,greed,and power.