Selling Uranium to India - Yes or no?

[rife168]

Julia Gillard has announced she wants the Australian Labor Party to change its policy of not selling uranium to countries that have not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

India have not signed this treaty, yet Gillard argues that selling Uranium to India is in our 'best interests' and good for 'foreign relations'.

What do YOU think?

[rife168]

Some interesting articles:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/why-its-too-dangerous-to-sell-uranium-to-india-20111203-1ocac.html

http://theconversation.edu.au/should-australia-sell-uranium-to-india-4290

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-placed-at-bottom-of-nuclear-safety-index-compiled-by-US-thinktank/articleshow/11492735.cms

[grevenchorf]

Without getting into the nuclear debate itself, it's absolutely disgusting. What is the entire point of international law and treaties if they are so blithely ignored by governments? Australia, and in particular the ALP has had a long-standing tradition of adhering to multilateralism and ensuring our international obligations with respect to following treaties to which we are signatories for. This is just a slap in the face to organisations which we have invested time and money in creating IMO.

[rife168]

I am thinking of speaking about this subject for my English oral SAC, I am quite versed in the whole nuclear/Uranium side of things, but I am essentially 'politically illiterate'. Are there any other political issues that you can see with the potential sale of Uranium to India?

India is not a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India argues entrenches the status quo of the existing nuclear weapons states whilst preventing general nuclear disarmament.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
I find that statement interesting as the three main objectives of the NPT are: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

[ShortBlackChick]

I think the long standing issue with Pakistan could also be a factor in India's need for Uranium. From memory India has more nuclear warheads than Pakistan, but even though India claims to need Uranium for power generation, is that guaranteed?

Also fletch, have fun saying 'proliferation' a billion times in your speech, if you do it. I had to stop every now and then to say it slowly to stop my self from sounding like I have a speech impediment LOL

[Bhootnike]

think about the advantages. how many of you have been to india?
the amount of air pollution there is filth. all the pollutants such as diesel have accumulated over time and its smog, everywhere, (except in the hillstations and some other places).
 since nuclear fission produces no air pollutants, i hear. nuclear energy will be a step forward for india , and also, more power, maybe even power for the homeless and slums.
the problems associated with this are ofc, waste, and the threat of weapons.

[Bhootnike]

I think the long standing issue with Pakistan could also be a factor in India's need for Uranium.

And thats probably one reason why they haven't signed the treaty.
cause if pakistan decides to bombard india one day, we will atleast have the authority to return the favour.
thats what i think anyways..

[rife168]

That seems logical, is there pressure on Pakistan to also sign the treaty?

In the third article I posted, the alleged corruption in the Indian governmental body is highlighted. Do you think this is relevant whatsoever to the nuclear issue? Perhaps things like covering up accidents/experiments..

For the oral, say I am arguing against the Uranium export to India, to what extent will I need to include points that are in favour of exporting, such as pollution/increased energy output etc.?

Also fletch, have fun saying 'proliferation' a billion times in your speech, if you do it. I had to stop every now and then to say it slowly to stop my self from sounding like I have a speech impediment LOL

Haha, I've already started practising..

[Bhootnike]

That seems logical, is there pressure on Pakistan to also sign the treaty?

In the third article I posted, the alleged corruption in the Indian governmental body is highlighted. Do you think this is relevant whatsoever to the nuclear issue? Perhaps things like covering up accidents/experiments..

For the oral, say I am arguing against the Uranium export to India, to what extent will I need to include points that are in favour of exporting, such as pollution/increased energy output etc.?

yeah, even they started pleading australia to give uranium to them too! but i doubt either of them will sign the treaty.

alleged corruption?! pfft, no alleged, you have to say theres atleast 90% corruption easily. and theres no way out of it. they've seriously swum to deep into the ocean now. as much as i love india, the government is a mess.
if relevant to the nuclear issue, yes, easily. what happens if someone of the likes of , say Indian mafia - mm, i dont know if you've heard of him, but mastermind of 1993 bombay bombings - dawood ibrahim, gets hold of a nuclear weapon. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :s
if you're fighting against this, then your main ideas should defz be about the threats of terrorism, gang violence etc etc.
the indian government could even make NO use of the fact they have such a good energy source, i.e., not produce any electricity out of it and etc. - unfulfilled promises are quite common.
also, where is the waste going to go? more shit into the ganges..? i can see that coming...

if you're arguing against, then aren't you just meant to go against? if you are required to outline some positive sides to this issue, then yeah, no pollution, more energy, slums/homeless, cheaper fee's and etc etc.

[rife168]

Thanks for those tips Bhootnike, as mentioned earlier, I am 'politically illiterate'...
I think evoking fear will be a very effective means of persuading my audience. :]

If you're arguing against, then aren't you just meant to go against?

Yeah that's what I thought, but then I heard/read about using a rebuttal or something similar and I panicked...