India is not a Rogue State
K. Subrahmanyam, strategic affairs analyst | September 3, 2008
Because India has not signed the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), some oppose the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and their plan to waive the ban on its nuclear commerce. ++ But India has committed itself to fully cooperate with the IAEA and, if it should join the global efforts on limiting greenhouse gas emissions, it needs nuclear energy. ++ Therefore, in order to further promote non-proliferation, the NSG would be right to make India, with its advanced nuclear technology, a stakeholder in the non-proliferation community.
Tags: | nuclear proliferation |
India |



Sat, Jan 10th 2009, 12:05
Member deleted
There is an even older saying: "But You never had the right to to pull the gun at my head in the first place." They both go under the principle that no threat or prior instigation had been made to warrant any action: like that of needing to pull a gun in the first place (even as it assumes that we are talking about a civilized world).
One would always go by the older saying. Any establishment is defined by the parameters that are at work and get displayed in its environments. Be it a corporation or a state, a casual unannounced stroll through it immediately defines the Corporation or the State. For someone looking for an employment - that casual and unannounced stroll through the organization helps not only define the organization at its natural behaviour but also helps decide whether one would like to even apply for a vacancy there. Those small things differentiates and separates the Corporate world from say a fly-by-night operator or even a mafiosi outfit. The differences are real. Why should anyone suppose that a state is any different - given the inability of the state to replace its population, though enjoyed by a Corporation, including its ability to re-locate to another geographical space that is inhabited by people that can meet its minimum basic criteria: of life & living! Most states usually force upon the Corporation the basic minimum standards. The differences again are real and very eloquent.