|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
October 3, 2008 - 6:54am.
The Senate has handed President Bush probably the last foreign policy victory of his presidency, easily approving, 86-13, a measure to end a 34-year ban on nuclear trade with India. The House had earlier approved it, 298-117. As easy a sell as it was here, the agreement almost brought down the government of India because its prickly nationalist and communist parties insisted that its requirement that India's civilian nuclear program be open to international monitoring impinged on national sovereignty. India has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has been banned from international nuclear trade since 1974 when it tested its first nuclear bomb. This agreement is de facto recognition of India as a nuclear power and that nothing that happened over the last 34 years is likely to change that. India last tested a weapon in 1998, and U.S. lawmakers have made clear that if it tests another one, the deal is off. There is some danger that, as critics charge, other nations seeking nuclear weapons might take the deal as some kind of go-ahead. But India is a stable democracy, a growingly important U.S. trading partner and one with whom we have steadily improving relations after years of Indian resentment. And there is a pecuniary motive as well. India's booming economy is short of power and the country plans to spend $14 billion on nuclear reactors and equipment next year and perhaps $175 billion over the next 25. This could help sustain the U.S. nuclear industry until such time as our energy planners get over their fantasies about wind and solar panels and realize that nuclear power is essential to any sensible national energy policy. Bush has been pushing this agreement since the start of his second term. It's a victory he should savor.
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
|
I don't think that the solar
Submitted by CheckerboardStr... on October 3, 2008 - 6:37pm.I don't think that the solar and wind argument and the nuclear argument are as mutually exclusive as some would like to believe.
Sure sure, there are legions of people who will try anything rather than cozy up to the big evil nuke, but the folks IN THE BUSINESS of wind and solar realize full well that nuclear power is a viable and practical alternative.
"This ain't your Dad's nuclear reactor".
Just not in your backyard.
Submitted by woody188 on October 5, 2008 - 1:00am.Just not in your backyard.