Americans should applaud this deal with India.  As seems to always be the case with the Bush Administration, hypocricy is the foundation of most arguments.  On issues such as Iraq, the anti-Bush crowd screams that he abusing American power by forcing our way of life on others.  Yet in instances such as the India nuclear agreement, the anti-Bush crowd accuses Bush of not effecting American interests enough and "missing an opportunity."  Where is the distinction?  People, this is called hypocricy.  Cherry-picking political issues is an old trick but it certainly does not withstand the test of reason and common sense.  Why does nobody give Bush credit for defusing the India/Pakistan spat?  Under Bill Clinton it appeared as if a major war between the two nations was a distinct possibility.  Under Bush, the two countries have put their differences on the back-burner and even the hotbed of Kashmir has not made news in many months.  Rather than focusing on fairly minor flaws in the new nuclear agreement, let's acknowledge that it is a positive step in the right direction.

Being from India originally, I am not in favor of India promoting nuclear energy for civilian use. Nuclear technology is still not foolproof - India has had continuing trouble with the reactors it has developed, but has also been lucky that no Chernobyl magnitude incident has come its way. Even if no accidents occur during the life time of the reactors, storage of the nuclear waste material is another huge headache. Even here in US, we have not figured out a safe way to store it - the Yucca Mountain proposal is still not final after years of debate and scientific studies. India's population density is 3x that of US, and while there still are some uninhabited areas (like the Thar desert), often there are habitations in not too distant proximity. It certainly does not have as vast tracts of open space as we have here in the western states.

India is very rich in coal. While raw coal burning is a disaster for the environment, coal gassification or synfuel technologies might be better. India can also get natural gas from its neighbors (Bangladesh and Iran) - but the political will is lacking (internally in Bangladesh and through US pressure in the case of getting it from Iran). Other renewable forms of energy (solar, wind, hydro) are also good target opportunities for India to solve its growing energy budget. These are primarily my reasons for not supporting India's attemtp to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

I am fully supportive of India developing nuclear weapons technology, primarily because of the continued threat from Pakistan. Now that it is no secret that Pakistan begged, borrowed, and stole technology (from Holland to start with and then several western countries like US and Germany under different guises), and China actively helped it, it leaves India in a vulnerable position to give up nuclear arms in the face of such declared threats. But that is another column, another day.

Now what is most interesting to me is the rank stink of US hypocrisy under the present administration concerning the nuclear proliferation stance. India initially opposed signing the NPT because of its uneven application - allowing the 5 nuclear club members to keep their arsenal while prohibiting others. WHY? I heard Joe Cirincionne (sp?) argue yesterday - that does not hold water because all nuclear states are also bound by this treaty to reduce their arsenals. And in reality what is happening? Yes, some conventional warheads and weapons have been destroyed, but this Bush administration has been putting tons of money into new classes of nuclear weapons and other technologies like thermobaric weapons (bunker busters in common parlance). US does one thing and preaches another thing. All of those who are saying this deal is bad - I have not seen such vehement argument in favor of holding the US to the same spirit of the NPT - it is not enough to just hold them to the letter of the agreement. China has been proliferating (to Pakistan and North Korea) and the US has chosen to ignore it (or just slaps on the wrist much much later). Great! I think US commentators have little moral ground to sound so indignant when they quietly acqueisce to US blatantly violating all that the NPT stands for.