An oversimplification: Bush's approach has been to act as nuclear hegemon. India gets America's stamp of nuclear approval. Theres two alternatives to the approach Bush has taken. One is liberal internationalism, where the key aim is to bring India into the fold by signing the non-proliferation treaty. The other approach might be called realist isolationism, where you view an arms race and possibly continental conflict in Asia as innevitable and try to get as far away from it as you can. I think that liberal internationalism is the best option. I also think that when you have a President that spends the country's diplomatic capital like a Republican Congressman then that option gets harder to follow. So, the question that comes after the "should haves" is the "should." What should we do?
Thanks for the comment.
We should have signed a deal that welcomed India as a responsible nuclear power, without giving them the authorization to produce unlimited quantities of plutonium bombs using American technology.
But the real answer is: we should never have allowed ourselves to get into a position where we were so desperate to make a deal that we were willing to give away the farm.
You are a jack-ass in case you didnt know.
Commenting by HaloScan
