India, Pakistan got atomic arms "legitimately": US

[kraf001]

India, Pakistan got atomic arms "legitimately": US (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=31511)


NEW YORK - The US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Wednesday the way India and Pakistan had obtained nuclear arms was legitimate, in contrast to Iran which he accused of pursuing atomic weapons in violation of its international undertakings.

While Iran is seeking to conceal development of nuclear weapons under the guise of a legitimate program to generate nuclear power, Bolton said, India and Pakistan "did it legitimately."

His comments, made in response to an audience question following a speech to a meeting of the World Jewish Congress, appeared to go farther than the administration of US President George W. Bush has previously gone in embracing the two nations' nuclear programs.

They also coincide with a visit by Bush to India in which the United States is offering New Delhi de facto recognition of its nuclear arms program. Bush is due to travel to Pakistan from India.

The United States imposed punitive sanctions on India after it tested a nuclear bomb in 1998. In the same year, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution condemning India and Pakistan for their nuclear weapons tests.

Under a deal India and the United States agreed in principle in July 2005, New Delhi would commit itself to certain international nonproliferation standards including putting its civilian nuclear facilities under international inspection.

In return it would gain access to US civilian nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors, that it was denied for 30 years. India's military facilities would not be subject to inspections under the deal.

At the same time, the US administration is pressing Iran to turn its back on a program to enrich uranium on its own soil, a plan Tehran insists is intended only to produce electric power but which Washington insists aims to develop nuclear bombs.

Bolton noted that neither India nor Pakistan had ever signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, intended to contain the spread of atomic arms, while Iran had done so.

"I give them (India and Pakistan) credit at least that what they did was consistent with the obligations they undertook," Bolton said.

"They never pretended that they had given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. They never tried to tie what they were doing under a cloak of international legitimacy. They did it openly and they did it legitimately," he said.

The 1998 Security Council resolution called on India and Pakistan to stop all nuclear development programs immediately and urged other states to stop selling either country equipment that could be used in atomic arms.

*******


guess this should put things in perspective for the countries that want nuclear weapons :cantbeli:

[Lurps]

Just have to leave the treaty, i want some too.woot Does someone know, do they both have only fission weapons?

[caridon]

doublespeak at its best.

The US should be ashamed.

/C

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Neither India nor Pakistan ever signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Iran did.


Neither India nor Pakistan has ever violated the terms of the NPT, since they are not signatories. Iran has.


India has a non-first use policy. Pakistan's weapons are aimed only at India, and their policy is defensive in nature - to be used only in the event they are attacked or severely damaged economically/destabilized.


Iran has stated that it views the total destruction of another nation as a religious duty.

[annihilation]

So then if Iran leaves the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, then its a legit operation for them. If thats the case I see no merit in any nation join the Nucleat Non-Proliferation treaty.

2sheds_Jackson:
"India has a non-first use policy. Pakistan's weapons are aimed only at India, and their policy is defensive in nature - to be used only in the event they are attacked or severely damaged economically/destabilized."

Couldn't Iran preach the same *censored**censored**censored**censored*? I know North Korea does.

[kineret]

I dont know about pakistan, since it supports groups that are on the state dept list of terror organizations, not to mention that pakistan single-handedly created the taliban throught their ISI, but India has full right to a nuclear shield and nuclear civilian energy. Bush's nuclear deal was inevitable, as India's power grows regionally. Iran is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism, has publicly stated their wish to destroy a sovereign nation, and signed the NPT, then in secret developed weapons anyway. They are not one and the same by any stretch of imagination.

[ElHombre]

Neither India nor Pakistan ever signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Iran did.

and the US has a longstanding policy starting with nixon and continuing through reagan, bush sr., and clinton that states that the US will not be giving nuclear technology to india until it signs the NPT.

until last week.

it is typically thought to be a good idea to keep the spread of nuclear weapons under tight control. oh well...

[STIG]

I dont know about pakistan, since it supports groups that are on the state dept list of terror organizations, not to mention that pakistan single-handedly created the taliban throught their ISI, but India has full right to a nuclear shield and nuclear civilian energy. Bush's nuclear deal was inevitable, as India's power grows regionally. Iran is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism, has publicly stated their wish to destroy a sovereign nation, and signed the NPT, then in secret developed weapons anyway. They are not one and the same by any stretch of imagination.
Theres a rumor that you fellas cracked a deal with the Indians to take out the Pakistani nuclear instalations Iraq style in 90s but backed down due to US pressure...any truth in that?

[STIG]

and the US has a longstanding policy starting with nixon and continuing through reagan, bush sr., and clinton that states that the US will not be giving nuclear technology to india until it signs the NPT.

until last week.

it is typically thought to be a good idea to keep the spread of nuclear weapons under tight control. oh well...

Geopolitik > Moralpolitik.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

So then if Iran leaves the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, then its a legit operation for them. If thats the case I see no merit in any nation join the Nucleat Non-Proliferation treaty.

A signatory can leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country" - giving 3 months notice.

But Iran has already violated the treaty, while being a signatory. Nothing can change that now. Their credibility and legitimacy is destroyed, and their intentions are already made clear.




2sheds_Jackson:
"India has a non-first use policy. Pakistan's weapons are aimed only at India, and their policy is defensive in nature - to be used only in the event they are attacked or severely damaged economically/destabilized."

Couldn't Iran preach the same *censored**censored**censored**censored*? I know North Korea does.

I suppose they could, but again, Pakistan has not signed the NPT, and NK is not a member either. Iran is.

They must either abide by their commitments, or acknowledge their failure and take the consequences. They cannot have it both ways.

[annihilation]

You have a point. Iran would have been better off giving their 3 months notice and then dropping from the treaty. Granted either way, I see them getting nukes. I just don't see them being really stopped at the moment.

[kineret]

Theres a rumor that you fellas cracked a deal with the Indians to take out the Pakistani nuclear instalations Iraq style in 90s but backed down due to US pressure...any truth in that?


not sure, could be true. in late 97, early 98 India and Pakistan almost went to full scale war. Israel has a pretty big military trade going with India, not sure if they would actually do the dirty work of nuke-facility bombing for Indians, but I they would probably supply the bunker busters and jamming radars for Indian fighter bombers if US wouldnt mind.

[STIG]

not sure, could be true. in late 97, early 98 India and Pakistan almost went to full scale war. Israel has a pretty big military trade going with India, not sure if they would actually do the dirty work of nuke-facility bombing for Indians, but I they would probably supply the bunker busters and jamming radars for Indian fighter bombers if US wouldnt mind.

thanks for the info:)

[annihilation]

Remember that old Bush Senior speach about children no longer needing to sleep under the fear of nuclear weapons pointed at them.

[ViktorNavorski]

The NPT does not bar signatory nations from providing civilian nuclear technology under safeguards to non-signatories such as India. Some of India reactors will be subjected to IAEA regulations. By 2014, 65% of India nuclear capacity will be open to inspection. So, pretty much, India will comply with terms similar to the NPT without being a signatory, yet. Can't say the same for Iran or North Korea for that matter.

[annihilation]

yet. Can't say the same for India or North Korea for that matter.

I think you meant Iran or Noth Korea.....

[Atlantic Friend]

India, Pakistan got atomic arms "legitimately": US (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=31511)




guess this should put things in perspective for the countries that want nuclear weapons :cantbeli:

At some point Washington and Tel Aviv should say the same about Israeli nuclear weapons. I never understand why Tel Aviv never announced officially that they had nuclear weapons. Nowadays everybody knows they have them, and isn't deterrence built upon your enemy knowing the weapons are theree and ready to be used ?

[kraf001]

At some point Washington and Tel Aviv should say the same about Israeli nuclear weapons. I never understand why Tel Aviv never announced officially that they had nuclear weapons. Nowadays everybody knows they have them, and isn't deterrence built upon your enemy knowing the weapons are theree and ready to be used ?
because the time they got it there was no justification... in 1960s their enemies were Arabs who would loose a war in 6 days (no need to scare them with nukes) and back then there was no Ahmadinejad to open his mouth.. they got it because US wanted an ally with nukes in the region!

[Telnyashka]

doublespeak at its best.

The US should be ashamed.

/C

Agreed but..that is international politics. Supporting dictators like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, yet complaining about democracy across the world...

Not gonna blame him, i.e. Im not gonna say "AMERIKKA IS IMPERIALIST HYPOCRITS" nah...its international politics, everyone does it.

[S'13]

because the time they got it there was no justification... in 1960s their enemies were Arabs who would loose a war in 6 days (no need to scare them with nukes) and back then there was no Ahmadinejad to open his mouth.. they got it because US wanted an ally with nukes in the region!

Excuse me when I say that what you have just written is BS.

Israel started developing its nuclear weapons program way before the 1967 watershed (in the 50's).

Up untill the Six Day War there was a big question mark over Israel's existence. Israel was outnumberd and thought to have inferior equipment when compared to Arab military forces.

Believe it or not... but Israel and the U.S weren't very close up untill the early 70's. This changed also due to the 1967 watershed:

-The crisis in Israel-Franco relations that began after the war.

-Israel's establishment as a significant regional force.

Apart from that there was the fact that Israel turned to a nuclear power (behind America's back and at around the same time as the Six Day War).

So you see, the fact that Israel developed a nuclear program is among the reasons the U.S made Israel a key ally and not the other way around.

And what's the reason for the Israeli government ambiguousness?

As long as the people who need to know understand Israel's might, there's no reason to publicize it ourseleves. Added a lot to the deterrence factor in my opinion.

[Laworkerbee]

Were not the majority of Israel's weapons pointed at the Soviet Union? I was always under the impression the Israeli's used these as a balance against the Soviet Union to get it's client states to back off in case things got REAL bad

[Lurps]

Were not the majority of Israel's weapons pointed at the Soviet Union? I was always under the impression the Israeli's used these as a balance against the Soviet Union to get it's client states to back off in case things got REAL bad Well ive atleast heard that during Yom Kippur war when the Israelis were pushing towards Damascus the Soviets threatened to send troops. I was told the Israelis replied that they would use nukes if necessary, does someone know if this is true?

[S'13]

There are plenty of stories about the issue of the U.S.S.R and Israel's nuclear arms program.

Not long ago there was an article in one of Israel's leading newspapers which featured the claim that the Soviets encouraged and even urged Nasser to attack Israel, becuase they wanted to put an end to Dimona. This plan backfired when Israel launched its counter strike (the Six Day War).

It was also mentioned that the U.S found out during the Yom Kippur War that the Soviet Union had transferred nuclear arms to Egypt. The U.S alerted Israel over this matter. Probably would have been used had Israel decided to crush the encircled Third Army.

[signatory]

Bolton said, India and Pakistan "did it legitimately."

So the last 30'ish years (1976-2001) of sanctions and acts by previous U.S presidents and congress were illegal ?

flip-flop.

[Clarsachier]

Nobody wants another nuclear power in the world but dumb-a** statements like this don't help forge a diplomatic force against proliferation.

Even this idiot must've felt dumb submitting this 'Bushism.' India hasn't even signed the nuclear proliferation treaty.

[kraf001]

Excuse me when I say that what you have just written is BS.

Israel started developing its nuclear weapons program way before the 1967 watershed (in the 50's).

Up untill the Six Day War there was a big question mark over Israel's existence. Israel was outnumberd and thought to have inferior equipment when compared to Arab military forces.

Believe it or not... but Israel and the U.S weren't very close up untill the early 70's. This changed also due to the 1967 watershed:

-The crisis in Israel-Franco relations that began after the war.

-Israel's establishment as a significant regional force.

Apart from that there was the fact that Israel turned to a nuclear power (behind America's back and at around the same time as the Six Day War).

So you see, the fact that Israel developed a nuclear program is among the reasons the U.S made Israel a key ally and not the other way around.

And what's the reason for the Israeli government ambiguousness?

As long as the people who need to know understand Israel's might, there's no reason to publicize it ourseleves. Added a lot to the deterrence factor in my opinion.
that sounds more of your opinion than facts... for a second there I thought you are gonna ridicule my take on the issues with some hard evidence not what you think was the motives.. again that doesn't mean I was right, funny how you jump in and call bull*censored**censored**censored**censored* on other's opinions :cantbeli:

[S'13]

that sounds more of your opinion than facts... for a second there I thought you are gonna ridicule my take on the issues with some hard evidence not what you think was the motives.. again that doesn't mean I was right, funny how you jump in and call bull*censored**censored**censored**censored* on other's opinions :cantbeli:

And your post was a perfect example on how to present hard hitting facts... :roll:


Sure it's my opinion, but at least I explained mine and based it on historic events.

[kraf001]

And your post was a perfect example on how to present hard hitting facts... :roll:


Sure it's my opinion, but at least I explained mine and based it on historic events.
no historical facts in there.. you are claiming that Israel did all that behind America's back... how is this a historic fact (unless you are a US official that has access to intelligence from that era and if that's the case I concede)? it is your take on the history and that was mine!

[Atlantic Friend]

because the time they got it there was no justification... in 1960s their enemies were Arabs who would loose a war in 6 days (no need to scare them with nukes)

And who threatened to overrun Israeli defenses in 1973... Plus, when you have a nation of less than 10 million inhabitants forced to live in a state of permament armed peace with neighbors with a population 10 times as big whose leaders have pledge to destroy, nuclear deterrence makes a lot of sense IMHO.


and back then there was no Ahmadinejad to open his mouth..

In the 1960s they had Gamal Adbel Nasser and Hafez El Assad and Saddam Hussein who were just as vocal in the destruction of Israel (which was also in the PLO charters).


they got it because US wanted an ally with nukes in the region!

So if it was Washington's decision to have a nuclear Israel, why didn't they announce it ?

[Atlantic Friend]

Israel started developing its nuclear weapons program way before the 1967 watershed (in the 50's).

Exactly, it was in the mid-1950s that Israel and France developed a joint nuclear program aimed at getting nuclear weapons for both countries. The research lab at Dimona was part of this joint program.


Up untill the Six Day War there was a big question mark over Israel's existence. Israel was outnumberd and thought to have inferior equipment when compared to Arab military forces.

Indeed. While Israel bought and developed superior weapons and acquired a much superior operational expertise, it is still outnumbered today, to the point where even light military losses would have a significant impact on the Israeli nation. Hence the necessity for Israel to keep attracting Jews from all over the world.


Believe it or not... but Israel and the U.S weren't very close up untill the early 70's. This changed also due to the 1967 watershed:

That's correct as far as I know.


-The crisis in Israel-Franco relations that began after the war.

Indeed. Before 1967, it was nuclear cooperation, Mirage and AMX tanks sales to Israel. After the war, there was an embargo on arms sales, and then a further dependency of French economy on Middle East oil that affected the two nations' relations.

[kraf001]

And who threatened to overrun Israeli defenses in 1973... Plus, when you have a nation of less than 10 million inhabitants forced to live in a state of permament armed peace with neighbors with a population 10 times as big whose leaders have pledge to destroy, nuclear deterrence makes a lot of sense IMHO.
this could be a good way to look at it but Israel's arsenal is too large to be defense purposes only!



In the 1960s they had Gamal Adbel Nasser and Hafez El Assad and Saddam Hussein who were just as vocal in the destruction of Israel (which was also in the PLO charters).

apples and oranges.. it is not about what they say, it is about what they are capable of and what they are doing that could be seen as improvements to their capabilities... none of these ppl were strong enough to win a conventional war against Israel back then and they didn't have a nuclear capability to be countered the same way!



So if it was Washington's decision to have a nuclear Israel, why didn't they announce it ?
only time can answer that question clearly but I could guess element of surprise could have something to do with it.. you see what happened 1986 was just too cheesy to be real and it makes more sense to think that Israel wanted its nuclear program being reviled (at least partially) so they just staged the whole thing... I think if we could study the history fully and see what changed around that time we could find out what made Israelis to keeping their nukes a secret until then..

p.s. we should all be aware that our opinions are based on how we see historical events and characters.. there is no way that we could figure out what happened behind the closed doors in 1960s!

[Atlantic Friend]

this could be a good way to look at it but Israel's arsenal is too large to be defense purposes only!

What do you know exavtly about the extent of the Israeli nuclear arsenal ?


apples and oranges.. it is not about what they say, it is about what they are capable of and what they are doing that could be seen as improvements to their capabilities... none of these ppl were strong enough to win a conventional war against Israel back then and they didn't have a nuclear capability to be countered the same way!

Egypt, Syria, and their Arab allies came very close to winning a conventional war against Israel in the 1973 war... And why shoukd Israel wait for the hostile Arab armies to be able to defeat it before developing a deterrence weapon anyway ?

[kraf001]

What do you know exavtly about the extent of the Israeli nuclear arsenal ?

Egypt, Syria, and their Arab allies came very close to winning a conventional war against Israel in the 1973 war... And why shoukd Israel wait for the hostile Arab armies to be able to defeat it before developing a deterrence weapon anyway ?

I was under the impression that the war wasn't as close as you suggest, then again I could be biased as majority of Iranian sources on this war are more anti-Arab than anti-Israeli... but like I said before creating capability to have more than 200 nuclear warheads (excluding tactical nukes) is not exactly defensive! If that indeed was what wanted they could have done it with even 10 warheads and why wait until 80s to tell the enemies…

There are just too many unknowns!

[Atlantic Friend]

I was under the impression that the war wasn't as close as you suggest, then again I could be biased as majority of Iranian sources on this war are more anti-Arab than anti-Israeli... but like I said before creating capability to have more than 200 nuclear warheads (excluding tactical nukes) is not exactly defensive! If that indeed was what wanted they could have done it with even 10 warheads and why wait until 80s to tell the enemies…

There are just too many unknowns!


I was under the impression that the initial Arab assault was very successful across the Canal, and that the Syrians pressed the Israeli really hard on the Golan, to the point where there were legitimate fears that Israeli cities were in danger.

Would a Israeli MP member shed some light on the Yom Kippur War ? I sure would appreciate to get some insider's feeling about how serious the threat was.

[S'13]

no historical facts in there.. you are claiming that Israel did all that behind America's back... how is this a historic fact (unless you are a US official that has access to intelligence from that era and if that's the case I concede)? it is your take on the history and that was mine!

You should read the Samson Option...

[S'13]

I was under the impression that the initial Arab assault was very successful across the Canal, and that the Syrians pressed the Israeli really hard on the Golan, to the point where there were legitimate fears that Israeli cities were in danger.

Would a Israeli MP member shed some light on the Yom Kippur War ? I sure would appreciate to get some insider's feeling about how serious the threat was.

There was indeed fear that the Syrians would pass the pre 1967 lines. The IDF had to focus more on that front as there was a lot more land in Sinai which buffered between Egyptian forces and Israel proper.

[Atlantic Friend]

There was indeed fear that the Syrians would pass the pre 1967 lines. The IDF had to focus more on that front as there was a lot more land in Sinai which buffered between Egyptian forces and Israel proper.

Thanks a bunch !

[caridon]

There was indeed fear that the Syrians would pass the pre 1967 lines. The IDF had to focus more on that front as there was a lot more land in Sinai which buffered between Egyptian forces and Israel proper.

I would allso like to add that the Egyptian attack centerd around having a SAM Umbrella to protect against the IAF.

This umbrella was not as mobile as the rest of their forces so it was in Israels interest to have a moving front.

/C

[Laworkerbee]

I would allso like to add that the Egyptian attack centerd around having a SAM Umbrella to protect against the IAF.

This umbrella was not as mobile as the rest of their forces so it was in Israels interest to have a moving front.

/C

spot on caridon

the Egyptians were more successful than they planned and as soon as they moved past that umbrella provided by the SA-6's they got hammered, up to that point the Isreali's were using entire squadrons in their attacks and suffering heavy losses due to the SAM belt ( the US also over night delivered ALQ-117 jammers for Isreali F-4's which helped some ).

[caridon]

spot on caridon

the Egyptians were more successful than they planned and as soon as they moved past that umbrella provided by the SA-6's they got hammered, up to that point the Isreali's were using entire squadrons in their attacks and suffering heavy losses due to the SAM belt ( the US also over night delivered ALQ-117 jammers for Isreali F-4's which helped some ).

A bitt OT: this is something to remember when we talk about hitting iran.

Here we have a good example that a SAM system can deny a superiour airforce airspace. and the iranians have spent quite a lot of effort on their AA.

food for thought.

/C

[Clarsachier]

=caridon]I would allso like to add that the Egyptian attack centerd around having a SAM Umbrella to protect against the IAF.

Standard Sov/Russian tactical doctrine to this day. A

[kraf001]

btw it appears that Israel got it legitimately too:


BBC: Britain supplied Israel with plutonium (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-09-britain-israel_x.htm)



LONDON (AFP) — Britain, a key player in a nuclear row with Iran, supplied Israel in the 1960s with plutonium and other restricted materials used in developing atomic weapons, a BBC investigation claimed.
The allegations, broadcast Thursday on the BBC's Newsnight program, were welcomed by Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu, who hoped greater openness about the past will help fight nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Citing top secret documents obtained under freedom of information laws and interviews with former government officials, Newsnight said Britain provided the samples as Israel developed its secret Dimona nuclear reactor.

Tony Benn, technology minister at the time, however, told the program that the deals took place without his knowledge even though he had been the man in charge of exporting nuclear material.

"On the question of plutonium for Israel, no reference was ever made to me. I mean the hypocrisy is what sticks in my nostrils," Benn said.

The former minister indicated that he thought then prime minister Harold Wilson had also been kept in the dark.

"My belief is he didn't know, but he might have done I can't rule that out."

In 1966, Israel asked Britain for a 10-milligram sample of plutonium — a mere fraction of the four kilograms required to make a nuclear bomb but still a helpful starting point, according to the BBC.

The Foreign Office rejected the request, while the Ministry of Defense warned that the sale could have "significant military value" as the smaller amount could be used for experimental purposes.

But Michael Michaels, a senior civil servant, wrote to protest strongly at the Foreign Office decision and managed to have it overturned, the BBC said.

Michaels, who served as Britain's representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency — the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog — for 14 years, was Jewish and considered to be very well-disposed towards Israel, according to the report.

Peter Kelly, British intelligence's top expert on the Israeli nuclear weapons program at the time, knew Michaels, who died in 1992.

Kelly told Newsnight he believed Michaels knew Israel was trying to build the bomb but had dual loyalties — to both Britain and Israel.

Britain also supplied Israel with hundreds of shipments of other materials which could have helped a nuclear weapons program, including compounds of uranium, lithium, beryllium, tritium and heavy water, the BBC program said.

Upon hearing the revelations, Vanunu, who spent 18 years in an Israeli prison for lifting the lid on the Dimona nuclear plant, said he was glad the news about Britain's alleged deals with Israel was coming out.

"It will be very helpful to fight the nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and to force Israel to do something to take part in the abolition of nuclear weapons in the Middle East," he told Newsnight in a telephone interview from Israel.

Vanunu said he hoped the revelations would force Britain to put pressure on Israel to open Dimona for inspection in the same way as London was pressuring Tehran about its disputed nuclear drive.

He also said he thought the material sold by Britain to Israel in the 1960s aided Israel in developing atomic weapons.

The material helped Israel "to search and to develop their program and to build not only atomic weapons but hydrogen bombs," Vanunu said.


I think this puts British in awkward position with their issue of mistrust with Iran... how can you not trust others with nukes when you gave away plutonium like candy.. it is not the matter of Israel being trust worthy or not it is the matter of plutonium being a restricted material and illegal to give to anyone... it is like a soldier selling his gun to a trust worthy friend!