If this deal does not go through, what does India lose? The only thing I can think of is access to cheap LEU for the two BWRs at Tarapur (we can easily shut them down if fuel is not available – they don’t generate all that much power) and access to cheap natural uranium for the PWHRs (we prospect, mine, mill and produce what we need but we don’t have a lot of it and access to cheaper fuel would be good).

So the bottom line is that the US needs to deliver, how they do it is none of India’s business. Pass all the laws you need, amend any that are needed, “manage NSG countries”, do whatever it takes, else the deal if off and India does nothing.

There is zero question of India signing the NPT or the CTBT. Negotiations on FMCT will be DOA.

1. Article III.2 of the NPT states that:
“Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide:
(a) source or special fissionable material, or
(b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable
material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall
be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.”

In effect, this only reqs “facility related safeguards.”’

2. The fullscope safeguards are a reqt only of NSG – which is an informal (non treaty based) agreement.

3. NSG, from a legal perspective, is quite arbitary in declaring commitment to NPT and in violating the NPT: it picks and chooses what it wants to accept from NPT. Example: NSG’s “Nonprolif principle”violates NPT because it reserves for NSG members the right to ignore adherence to the NPT or to a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty.

3. Article I of the NPT actually says nothig about transfers of non-weapons/non-explosive devices/technologies.

Indeed, if anythig, many of the members of NSG/NPT are in violation of this provision: US/UK maintain nukes in several NNWSs in Europe. Check this: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

4. Art. III of NPT: Each “non-nuclear-weapon State Party” to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards. The article and the treaty says nothing about non-parties.

The NPT conflict you mentioned does not arise because any reactor or associated technology sale to India will be to a facility under IAEA safeguards. That is a clear part of the India-US agreement.

But the bigger point is that there’s no disguising the fact that this agreement means the end of the NPT, at least as we know it. The Bush administration is likely to get Congress to make changes to US laws after a bloody fight. NSG will be dicey but except for China all the Big-5 are for it. But once a single sale to India in violation of current NSG guidelines is completed, the dam will break and everyone and his Uncle will land up in Delhi with nuclear power offers.

If the US-India deal goes through, it will be the end of the current NPT/NSG based nuclear order.