|Well, former president Jimmy Carter decided to weigh in on the nuclear deal with India... As expected it is more of a rant than any substinative thought; still, why pass up an oportunity to rip that idiot a new one...
"This change in policies has sent uncertain signals to other countries, including North Korea and Iran, and may encourage technologically capable nations to choose the nuclear option."
Um... North Korea and Iran have already started down that path and are probably the least technically capable... And you want to start talking about Iran? (notice he doesn't mention it again...)
"The proposed nuclear deal with India is just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation."
Yet he doesn't even talk about the deal or regional politics behind it...
"The only substantive commitment among nuclear-weapon states and others is the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), accepted by the five original nuclear powers and 182 other nations."
The US is the ONLY original Nuclear power.
"Its key objective is "to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology . . . and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament."
Tough to do when it has NO teeth to enforce such an objective!
"the five-year U.N. review conference in 2005, only Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan were not participating -- three with proven arsenals."
Actually all 4 are believed to have nuclear weapons, though Israel does not publicly state and the North Korea claim may be in some doubt - they are certainly working towards it.
"Our government has abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and spent more than $80 billion on a doubtful effort to intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental missiles, with annual costs of about $9 billion."
And this has what to do with the India deal?
"We have also forgone compliance with the previously binding limitation on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, with announced plans for earth-penetrating "bunker busters," some secret new "small" bombs, and a move toward deployment of destructive weapons in space. "
Um... No (though maybe we should...)
"Another long-standing policy has been publicly reversed by our threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These decisions have aroused negative responses from NPT signatories, including China, Russia and even our nuclear allies, whose competitive alternative is to upgrade their own capabilities without regard to arms control agreements."
The US has NEVER agreed, announced, or accepted a "no first use" policy.
"Last year former defense secretary Robert McNamara summed up his concerns in Foreign Policy magazine: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous."
McNamara said it? Then it must make sense and be credible... NOT!
"It must be remembered that there are no detectable efforts being made to seek confirmed reductions of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, of which the United States possesses about 12,000, Russia 16,000, China 400, France 350, Israel 200, Britain 185, India and Pakistan 40 each -- and North Korea has sufficient enriched nuclear fuel for a half-dozen. A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War."
Apperently Jimmy has never heard of SALT, START, or the Moscow Treaty... If anything this is MORE of a reason for the US to be prepared and armed. Of course Jimmy trusts Russia, China, and North Korea more than the US probably...
"Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders' nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT."
Which helped push them into the Russo-Soviet camp (or at least leaning neutrality) during the Cold War. With the GWoT and regional political factors, India is a needed ally more than ever!
"There was some fanfare in announcing that India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012, and that U.S. companies might win two of those reactor contracts, but this is a minuscule benefit compared with the potential costs. India may be a special case, but reasonable restraints are necessary. The five original nuclear powers have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, and India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity."
Seriously, where does he get his facts - and logic for that matter?
"So far India has only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, and Congress sh