Skip to main content

Dueling Editorials: The USA-India Agreement

deliv01 The New York Times and the Washington Post have both put up editorials on the pending agreement to allow the India and the United States to share nuclear technologies. The Times doesn't like it:

The nuclear agreement was a bad idea from the start. Mr. Bush and his team were so eager for a foreign policy success that they gave away the store. They extracted no promise from India to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.

The Post is all in:

For all its flaws, the agreement would create more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. If Congress backs out now, the only victims will be American nuclear suppliers, who would have to stand aside while French and Russian companies expand India's nuclear power system.

Although we agree more with the Post, we find its arguments a rather weakish tea. American nuclear suppliers can take care of themselves without this deal, and, as we've seen over numerous posts, the U.S. has been all over the globe making partnerships with various European and Asian countries. France and Russia will be in India competing even if the treaty passes, so there's no guarantee America would see tremendous amounts of business (although we actually think it would.)

But the Times, even with stronger arguments, approaches this with an ideological purity that ignores the nature of the players in this deal - this isn't, say, a Russia-Iran hair raiser - and the practical effects of the treaty, which are fairly benign. We grant that the elements the U.S. is skirting here are important, but have to agree with the Post that a rigid adherence to rules intended to rein in rogue nations shouldn't trip up this deal.

Chances are good for this one. Sens. McCain and Obama are both in support and House Speaker Pelosi wants to move it along and will waive a rule that would have hurt its chances. There's very little downside politically.

Now, the Russia-US nuclear deal, on the other hand - whoof!

Billy Redden in Deliverance. Dueling Banjos, of course, was the moment where the city men found a way to bond with the mountain men, followed of course by misunderstanding, murder and various horrific events. A unique novel and film about the masculine imperative gone mad. Redden was a high-school boy from the Georgia area where Deliverance was filmed; he reappeared briefly in Big Fish (2003) - playing the banjo.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …