New Delhi, Jan 17 (PTI) India has asserted that it will not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) notwithstanding its bilateral atomic agreement with the US, which is expected to pursue these pacts during the Obama government. "We will not sign CTBT or NPT and we have made it absolutely clear to the US that we are bound by the bilateral agreement with it and India-specific safeguards with the IAEA," External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told India Today Group Editor Prabhu Chawla in an interview http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20090117/1416/tnl-india-will-not-sign-ctbt-or-npt-pran_1.html
Now Pakistan wants India-type waiver for civil nuclear programme Islamabad, Jan 17 (PTI) Pakistan has said it wants an exemption from the NSG and International Atomic Energy Agency on the lines of the waiver given to India to boost its civil nuclear energy generation capacity with Chinese help. Pakistan did not oppose the NSG's waiver of its rules last year to allow India to acquire atomic technology and know-how because it expected similar treatment from the world community, Prime Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said. http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20090117/1422/twl-pak-wants-india-type-waiver-for-civi.html
Your point? America did not sign the moratorium to ban land mines. India is looking out for India, as it should be.
I think India received "civil nuclear deal" from USA on the condition that India will sign CTBT & NPT. If India can change it's decision as per external requirements, what is the guarantee that India will not first use Nuclear weapons in wars against Pakistan and China. What is the difference between India & Iran?
I am a Powell doctrine advocate. If India is attacked, then India should crush it's enemy beyond the enemy's hope for recovery. India would risk the same fate if it attacks without cause. Acts of war can be defined as any attempt by an outside entity to hamper the ability of a nation to protect and provide for it's people. I would expect my nation to do the same. If we are attacked by a nation without cause, then we should crush them and turn them into a colony of ours. If Iran attacks without cause, Israel should destroy the nation. If Israel is destroyed without cause then the allies of Israel should destroy the aggressors.
Between a peaceful democracy and an aggressive fundamentalist Islamic theocracy ruled by insane Mullahs? Do you even have to ask?
Even Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons. Israel is a nuclear power and it can bomb Iran anytime. The question here is about "Back-stabbing". If India can change decision as per "external requirements" then India will be the first to use Nuclear weapons when India is scared to death. Also India will use USA nuclear techonlogy to develop "sophisticted nuclear bombs" and someday India will bomb USA. Similar to what Taliban and Al-qaeda did in 1990. USA supplied high-tech & sophisticated weapons to Mujahideens/afghans (now Taliban & Al-Qaeda) to fight Russian army in 1980's. USA & Mujahideens were allies in 1980's. Osama Bin Laden was leader of Mujahideens. Now Taliban and Al-Qaeda is using "USA technology" to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. USA created Taliban and Al-Qaeda and now USA is paying "big price" for it. If USA wants to bomb Iran than USA should also want to bomb India. There should be no difference. USA & Europe are creating India and one day USA & Europe will pay "massive price" for this.
talknet, the psycho terrorism sponsor. Take care boy, they are watching all your sympathy for islamic militants in your posts.