Excellent post.

You might have added how this all looks in the Muslim world, especially given the relentless attacks on the possibility of a nuclear Iran.  Those of us who really want to keep Iran from accessing and developing nuclear weapons within the context of a multilateral system can only look at these sorts of agreements with considerable dismay.

but what does America get out of the deal, besides a close ally with nuclear warheads capable of striking our enemies in the middle east and asia?

I once sat on a beach in South India with 6rh century temples on one end of the beach and on the other - a nuclear power station.

Last time I looked, India was already a Democratic nation and has been one for a number of decades.

GSpinks: In "Diplomacy", the graduate student who wrote under Kissinger's name had an interesting hypothesis about France's insistence on maintaining an indepedent nuclear force: it had nothing whatever to do with defending itself, and everything to do with making damned sure that the US respected Article 5 of the NATO treaty.  Simply put, the question in the minds of all European leaders was whether Washington would be willing to see LA or New York in nuclear smoke if it retaliated against an attack on Paris or Bonn, and the answer was, "not sure".  And so, to make sure they did, France had nuclear weapons to force the issue: if Paris were attacked, Moscow would be counter-attacked, and would inevitably have brought the US into the war ...

French cockiness was, according to Kissinger's ghost-writer, an expression of a deep anxiety and not typical Gallic huffiness.

This is what I worry about in India and expecting India to actually be an ally for the United States against rogue regimes in Asia and the Middle East.  Frankly, the US has enough land-based, airborne and shipborne nuclear missiles to obliterate the Earth many times over - and so India's 50 or 500 50-kiloton A-bombs will add little to the arsenal.  But, by allying yourself to India, even a democratic India - you are allying yourself to an unpredictable country with interests, economic and geopolitical, that are in many ways at odds with yours.  There is no reason whatever for LA or New York to go up in smoke for Delhi; to have an alliance means putting yourself at risk; and in this case, at risk for gaining nothing.

India has been democractic for a number of decades, but it has been a stable democracy only for about a decade.  It is bordered by a vastly unstable country run by a bunch of lunatics and a stable though somewhat mercurial undemocractic state with unresolved border issues.  This is not the sort of country I would want to feel comfy having nuclear weapons.

The comment by icarusr reminds me that Britain LEASES its entire nuclear arsenal from the United States.  All Britain provides is the nuclear material in the warhead and the boat carrying the missiles.

It is utterly inconceivable that British missiles could be fired without the permission of the United States because the US would undoubtedly get the blame. The only reason I see for Britain maintaining an "independent" nuclear force is to allow the US to claim that a nuclear strike was a

"joint operation" with Britain.

icarusr writes:

-- India has been democractic for a number of decades, but it has been a stable democracy only for about a decade.  It is bordered by a vastly unstable country run by a bunch of lunatics and a stable though somewhat mercurial undemocractic state with unresolved border issues.  This is not the sort of country I would want to feel comfy having nuclear weapons.

The idea that India has been a "stable democracy only for about a decade" is completely untrue. We may not like the stranglehold the Nehru dynasty held over the Congress Party and national politics but that stranglehold did not extend to state politics. Perhaps icarusr makes the common confusion of democracy with capitalism because India did have a fairly centrally-controlled economy until about 20 years ago - bit it was nevertheless a democracy.

India has had continual border skirmishes with Pakistan over the status of Kashmir for decades but these are certainly not any kind of threat to the State of India. The idea that Bangladesh poses any kind of strategic threat to India is totally ludicrous. The unresolved border issues Bangladesh faces are which mudbanks in The Ganges survived today's high tide.

Short of the fantasy "world without nuclear weapons", any additional proliferation is a Bad Thing. But in the real world, it seems clear to me that the present NNPT is badly in need of an overhaul.

Moves towards India are a wonderful idea. We are highly unlikely to get drawn into a war by India because of this or any other likely deal on trade, even trade in nuclear materials. That doesn't mean there's not a danger of being drawn into a war in which India has a role. This is a reality we need to be working on, and it seems to me the best way to start is by continuing to improve our relations with India. This deal helps in that regard, and although I'm concerned about erosion of the NNPT, that's already a deteriorating situation that needs address. Attempting to do so without involving India would be pointless. Besides, they can help with Iran.

With Pakistan now playing the role of World's Most Dangerous Country, we need India on many levels, not least in pressuring the Pakis and making it more difficult for them to take our support for granted.