Slashdot Log In
India Joins Nuclear Market
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:25 AM
from the welcome-to-the-club-play-nice-ok dept.
from the welcome-to-the-club-play-nice-ok dept.
figona brings news that India will be allowed to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). A waiver was approved yesterday that provided an exception to the requirements that India sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. This means India will be able to buy nuclear fuel from the world market and purchase reactors from the US, France, and Russia; something it has been unable to do since it began nuclear testing in 1974 (which inspired the creation of the NSG). The waiver does not include terms to cut off access if India resumes nuclear testing, but the US Congress drafted a letter stating their willingness to do so. Opponents of the waiver have called it a "non-proliferation disaster."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Place your bets now! (Score:5, Insightful)
How many minutes until Pakistan demands the same treatment?
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Informative)
And Pakistan might just get the same treatment India just got, actually. After all, without their help militarily, fighting wars in Afghanistan would be much more difficult.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One of the areas where Pakistani support is most needed is in Waziristan [wikipedia.org]. This is a region which borders Afghanistan and is technically part of Pakistan, but is effectively controlled by the Taliban and Al Qaeda [wikipedia.org] -- it's generally regarded that if Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri are still alive, this is where they are operating from. I imagine that if India were to attempt to engage in military activities there, even though it isn't really controlled by Pakistan, Pakistan would still see it as an act of war aga
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing preventing India from whooping Pakistani ass is the Chinese and American support the Pakistanis have. If the Americans really wanted Pakistan to be taken out all they would have to do is pressurise the Chinese to back off and stop gifting F 16s to Pakistan and India can take care of the rest.
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck do you know about Pakistan and India? A whooping(sic) can of shit!
India and Pakistan (and in fact Bangladesh too) are the same people! They got divided by the British empire over the ambiguous decision of calling the zone with mostly Muslims "Pakistan". Now in fact, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, and India always was a multi-religious country.
It's the whole bullshit of external empires separating areas into "countries", that originally was the land of intertwined tribes. Those tribes lived side-by-side. And nowadays it's expected that they beat each other up over some made-up bullshit!
It's the same as my father had to experience and caused the death and torture of my uncles and my grandpa in Afghanistan. There the Soviet Union and the USA fought for resources... The Soviets did it by invasion. And the USA did it by giving the Afghanis weapons to fight them. But in fact, nobody cared for the people. Nowadays - after the soviets are gone - the USA *had* to invade Afghanistan, because one of *their own people* turned against them and was supposed to hide there. While in fact he's in USA's allied countries until this day, but they can't attack those countries, because they have the oil *and* the cash, and china supporting them by buying the oil. So the USA can't force those countries to sell to the USA anymore. (Hence the now normalized gas prices in the USA.)
So now the Afghanis have a nearly complete population of people that have never seen anything else than war, children crippled by mines and hate.
And you expect other countries not to hate you(r government)???
So please: If you haven't got a clue, STFU and stay out of other people's business and countries, and stop lamenting about some bullshit intrigues between those countries that your leaders told you!!!
Just so you don't thing I'm trolling here: I am in fact half Afghani and half Luxemburgish, and I like Americans like the ones here on Slashdot, the ones like Jon Steward, and many more. But seriously: Fix your government issues. Shoot people who admit openly that they want to cut the education budget, people who act based on superstition and criminal crooks fucking your constitution system. It's your country! (In fact most countries would be better off if they followed those rules :)
Parent
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are mostly right, of course. But keep in mind that politics, ethnocentrism and religious (primarily Islamic) mania has divided the populations of South Asia for some centuries now. The British, much like the Portuguese in Africa, merely exploited divisions that were already present and aggrandized them (they didn't create those divisions) for their own purposes (keep the sheeple fighting each other so they don't notice us while we take over their land, eh wot old chap?)
India mostly survived the pressures of decolonization with it's collective skin intact. B'desh and Pak were less fortunate. Poor Afghanistan has been screwed over by all this most of all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They got divided by the British empire over the ambiguous decision of calling the zone with mostly Muslims "Pakistan".
ORLY ? [infoplease.com]
What is now Pakistan was in prehistoric times the Indus Valley civilization (c. 2500 - 1700 B.C.). A series of invaders - Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and others - controlled the region for the next several thousand years. Islam, the principal religion, was introduced in 711. In 1526, the land became part of the Mogul Empire, which ruled most of the Indian subcontinent from the 16th to the mid-18th century. By 1857, the British became the dominant power in the region. With Hindus holding most of the economic, social, and political advantages, the Muslim minority's dissatisfaction grew, leading to the formation of the nationalist Muslim League in 1906 by Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876 - 1949). The league supported Britain in the Second World War while the Hindu nationalist leaders, Nehru and Gandhi, refused. In return for the league's support of Britain, Jinnah expected British backing for Muslim autonomy. Britain agreed to the formation of Pakistan as a separate dominion within the Commonwealth in Aug. 1947, a bitter disappointment to India's dream of a unified subcontinent. Jinnah became governor-general. The partition of Pakistan and India along religious lines resulted in the largest migration in human history, with 17 million people fleeing across the borders in both directions to escape the accompanying sectarian violence.
My bold.
That reads to me like certain powerful Muslims asked for the partition. But then how would you know, you're only half Afghani.
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Interesting)
Look the Muslims of Northern India had held power before the British took over. So a section of the Muslim Elite thought when they throw out the British they can go back to being kings. Then they realized in a democracy if people started voting on religious lines the Hindus would always be a majority. These people (the Muslim League) were not willing to base their politics on something besides religion nor were they willing to be in permanent opposition (like the South African Whites party nowadays) so they came up with the brilliant idea of a separate nation for Muslims. It would be like if at the end of Apartheid the whites had demanded a separate white state in South Africa. The people of the two releigions had been living together for centuries and it was simply not possible to just separate them. Some so called Muslim majority areas which went to Pakistan were 51% Muslim, 49% Hindus and after partition the 49% had to just get up and leave. And large Muslim majority areas were there at the heart of India which India simply could not give to Pakistan or India would be reduced to a patchwork like Africa. So partition was imperfect,incomplete and stupid , Pakistan a country based on religion is a stupid idea for the 20th century (BTW that goes for Israel too.) But the partition and the corresponding riots/ethnic cleansing which happened crested a lot of enemity between people of the two religions ( I had an Uncle who stayed on in East Pakistan. He was Hindu but he had been a senior police officer under the British and simply didnt believe anyone could touch him but yup he was killed by Muslims during the riots. The rest of the family left with only the clothes on their backs leaving behind lands and factories) Riots happened on both sides but they were a lot worse on the Pakistani side. This was because Pakistan had declared itself a Muslim only state while India had declared itself Secular and still had large Muslim populations in its heartlands so it couldnt carry out the kind of ethnic cleansing Pakistan did. The result at time of Partition the areas that were Pakistan had a 24% Hindu population . Now its less than 4%. India on the other hand started out with a 18% Muslim population which is now 21%. Just in case if you are wondering whether I hate Muslims I dont My wife is Muslim. What I do hate are the Muslim League and its philosophy which caused the partition and am virulently opposed to any philosophy which says people of different religions cannot stay together. The sad thing is Pakistan having being founded by selfih elites who didnt give a damn how many people suffered just as long as they can grab political power has become a totally unstable and dangerous state. Even though the GDP per capita of Pakistan is higher than India it is skewed horribly. There is a class of feudal lords the Bhuttos, the Sharifs etc who own almost all the land not owned by the Army and win all the elections as if the people dont vote for them they will throw the tenants off their land. Most of the rest of the population are no better than serfs like in Imperial Russia over whom the Feudal politicians hold the power of life and death. The only way out of poverty is to join the Army which has had the unfortunate effect of making the Army the strongest institution in the country. The Army on its part can only maintain its prestige and its budget as long as there are conflicts so they have no interest in peace with India or Afghanistan. The feudal politicians have made a deal with the Army that as long as they keep giving half the budget to the Army they can steal the rest and the people can go to hell. No wonder the desperate people are willing to listen to anything (including Islamic fundamentalism) which promises them a way out of their misery. All in all a very bad situation even without China giving them Nukes to try and hamper India's progress. The only solution I see is for India to reabsorb Pakistan and Bangladesh (Given the much faster population growth that has happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh this would result in a cou
Parent
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only solution I see is for India to reabsorb Pakistan and Bangladesh
Arre pagal ho gaya hai kya?? Are you fucking insane? India is still very much a developing country with it's own internal issues and problems. You want us to "absorb" a recalcitrant, hostile, genocidal population that is taught to hate before it is taught to read and are ideologically indoctrinated to want our destruction?
Why? We should keep as much distance between us and them as possible and cultivate better relations with western countries instead, focus more intensely on poverty reduction, reducing oil dependency, infrastructure and the anti-AIDS stuff, beef up our miltary to protect our borders and stamp illegal immigration from Nepal and B'Desh, and all that (imagine shouldering those burdens for the starving millions in B'Desh, there are enough of our brothers starving on our own soil).
Pakistan won't last long anyway. Already, East Pakistan broke away, Waziristan declared independence just a few years ago and Balochistan insurgency is in full swing after Nawaab Akbar Bugti has been declared a Shiite "Shaheed' (Islamic martyr) after the Sunni-dominated Pakistan army assassinated him. The Muttahida Qaumi movement is rising in Sindh. Now that Musharraf the dictator is out of the picture they will hold "democratic" (ie staged) referendum, effectively "elect" (ie dragoon) a bunch of Islamic nutters to power like they did with Nawaz Sharif, and start blowing each other up with renewed intensity. India cannot afford to deal with THAT can of worms. Let Pak be America's problem, and Bangladesh remain the royal shithole that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party made it into. We should focus on developing our own country into a stronger and more prosperous nation.
Empire building==bad idea.
Nation building==good idea.
Parent
Re:Place your bets now! (Score:5, Funny)
KHHAAAANNNNN!!!!!
Parent
Pakistan already has the same treatment (Score:3, Informative)
Or dont you know the Pakistanis were given their nukes by the Chinese. The country is a feudal military dictatorship. Simply not the kind of society to be able to develop Nukes on their own. They are good enough to take Chinese nukes and rebrand them though.
China Test Pak Nukes for Them (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
India already has nukes (Score:5, Informative)
Dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
India is already capable of building nuclear weapons, and are (theoretically) more than able to sell that tech to the highest bidders if they desired (I honestly don't see them doing so - just saying they can).
I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about Iran (which has arguably sponsored terrorism) than India (which has been nothing but friendly towards anyone who isn't Pakistan, and the latter for obvious reasons). While yes things may change, I just don't see India as being the type to sell nuclear anything, to anyone, in the foreseeable future.
Iran OTOH? Well, what are the non-proliferation folks doing about that? Not much, from the looks of it. If they want to concentrate their efforts in any particular direction, I'd have them staring a bit more to the west of India...
Re:Dunno... (Score:4, Insightful)
I totally agree .. people who put India in the same category as those Islamic fanatic nations just because some of its citizens wear turbans and keep beard are completely ignorant. India is a multicultural multireligious pluraristic socieity. Also India is constitutinally SECULAR. Yes sometimes there are sporadic incidents of intolerance and violence but what else can you expect when the country has just been independent for 60 years, have been robbed by its colonial masters for centuries and still is a fully functioning democracy with the second largest population in the world? You cannot compare what India has contrbuted towards peace in earth (hint: a half naked guy who shook the british empire and who has been inspiration for many others) with what Pakistan had to offer. India needs the nuclear fuel to produce cheap energy.. its too hot out there and they all need the air conditioning just like you do.
Parent
I wonder what their catalog looks like... (Score:5, Funny)
I'll bet it looks like the Johnson Smith catalog.
Fissionable Uranium - part no. #34-88091 - Whether its to power a city or to level a city, you'll be the envy of your friends with your very own pile of fissionable uranium. Comes in high-quality display case with certificate of authenticity. Color our choice please. No gift wrapping available for this item. Monogramming available for $10
$79,999,999.99
Wrong associations (Score:5, Funny)
Another nail in NPTs coffin (Score:4, Interesting)
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is built on three pillars; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Only the third has had any real success; proliferation continues, with Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea having gained nukes and South Africa, Libya and Iran having got most of the way. Existing nuclear powers have yet to disarm in any significant way, with the Brits making the most progress (fewest nukes out of any of the official powers) and we've still voted to renew our "deterrent".
The only thing remaining in the NPT for non-nuclear nations is some help on power generation. I can't see it lasting long; we may see countries withdrawing en masse in the future.
Not just about proliferation (Score:5, Informative)
People in the US especially seem to think of India in terms of snake charmers and cheap IT, forgetting that we are the second largest nation on earth, with genuine security concerns.
With China sitting to our east and making noises (usually, very loud noises) and a particularly unstable Pakistan to the west who got most of their nuclear tech from China, we really don't have a choice.
Besides which, far too many other pieces of tech cannot be sold to India because they may kinda sorta have some possible application in one corner of the fine art of nuclear weapons manufacture. This can finally stop now.
Finally, the whole deal means that we can now start having safety equipment for our nuclear program, which we haven't been able to obtain for years now.
Anyway, you probably don't know the amount of flak the government has taken over this deal... There's talk from lots of sides about "selling our sovereignty", because there will now be periodic inspections of all nuclear facilities by the IAEA.
Anyway, Arbitrarily restricting possession of nuclear weapons to those nations that tested before 1967 is not exactly a solid foundation for the NPT. It should have been quite blindingly obvious right back then that several nations, even reasonably stable ones, would have severe reservations about such an imbalanced treaty.
Get real (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look the Indian conventional army is much bigger and better equipped than the Pakistani one so India would never use a nuclear first strike against Pakistan. The Chinese military is stronger than India's but most of it is focussed against Japan and Taiwan. The forces facing against India in Tibet (India has a border with Tibet not China) are again inferior to the Indian forces on the eastern front. So India is in no danger of being overrun. The Nukes ensure that China or Pakistan wont be tempted to do a fir
Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, it's a position of protest. Nobody here likes the US or China or Russia saying that nobody else can have nukes, while they sit on earth-shattering (literally) quantities of the stuff. India has essentially followed the main ideas of non-proliferation (apart from two incidents) though - for example, there's a unilateral moratorium on testing.
On the other hand, we could have signed it and then developed nukes anyway, but India doesn't work that way
Parent
Re:Why Is India Not a Signatory? (Score:5, Informative)
Because the NPT is a biased treaty of HAVES and HAVE NOTS. It basically says that the countries that HAVE nuclear weapons can continue to have them forever and those that don't can never have them forever, thereby creating a hierarchy of powers. India rejects this as highly discriminatory and wants a world where all nuclear weapons are eliminated. Since that sounds impossible, India went ahead with its nuclear program to defend against its neighbours like China and Pakistan.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They claim ethical reasons. Basically China had nukes and a sometime-hostile attitude to India, so India decided to develop its own nukes. If India had them, Pakistan had to, so they refused to sign the treaty. Israel also refused to sign as part of its on-going policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nukes.
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Indians don't go around chanting "Death to America" for starters, nor do they have a crazy self-indulging senseless control freak for the head of their government. India has a tendency to honour international agreements, while the DPRK tends to flout them over and over again.
Besides, anyone has a right to sell something (or not) to someone for whatever reason they have. If I decide I don't want the USA to have any of my little pink bunnies, while letting the UK have them, what's wrong with that? My decision.
Parent
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been almost everywhere in South and East Asia. Never been Europe or the Americas though, maybe they shout "Death to America" over there...
I can see no reason why a news organisation would show people in the Middle East shouting death to America, but wouldn't show it if it happened in India. I'm pretty sure it would. It would certainly be a lot more interesting if it happened in India.
But Indians seem more concerned with their internal problems and the cause, rather than concerning themselves with whether it was something the Americans/Europeans did. Which is a complex which occurs a lot in China (generally the newspapers / commentators) and Korea (generally random protests).
And yes I've been to India, Korea and China. All for reasonable amounts of time (over a year each). I have also met a great deal of Iranians, none of whom wished death to America.
And I've never ever seen any Western recorded footage of people in Iran shouting "Death to America", perhaps you should look up the facts of that incident. It was a country wide chant, and it was recorded officially by various Arab channels. It's their government that's crazy, but the Iranians I've met seem much more friendly than most Americans I've met.
Parent
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, there's no way that they'll let Iran or North Korea even so much as attempt to build a reactor, but as soon as India wants on the scene
And how many Japanese citizens has India captured and held against their will in the last few decades? How many times have they threatened to wipe a neighbor off the map?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You realize that the article you linked ends by saying that he did say Israel should be wiped off the map, right?
I'll grant you that he didn't say that his country should be the one doing the wiping. There's still a huge difference between a stable democracy (India) and a country where the religious leadership holds a veto over everything (including who can run for office) and which denies the right of one of it's neighbors to exist.
I don't think that such a dramatic dichotomy exists. FWIW, Israel plays the democracy card too, though about half of its population isn't represented.
As for the quote, yes I realize what the author said at the end. It is also blatantly dishonest squirming to reach a conclusion that is palletable to the US establishment. Given that the USA supported Saddam's invasion of Iran, resulting in about 1 million dead, and then began to play both sides, I'd say the author's attempt to save face for NYT by providing "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so he's just a holocaust denier instead? Well, let's start shipping him some uranium! What could possibly go wrong?
I should have known better than to use a US news outlet to make my point. FWIW, I've only read about him expressing a brief skepticism toward the holocaust, and later on acknowledging that the holocaust was real on a number of occasions.
That said, I don't like Ahmadinejad or many of his policies. But the false hysteria being drummed up to justify war is even worse.
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, what?
India has had nuclear weaponry since the 1960's (or '70s?). Iran probably doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and North Korea may or may not have one.
Besides, when given a choice between a relatively peaceful nation that already has nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them), and arguably hostile regimes who are trying to lay hands on one?
In short - you must be joking, man.
Parent
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Nukes pointed at country X....check.
Country X has nukes pointer at them...check.
Constantly fighting over country Y....check.
Funny...the US seems to fit that bill for being "hostile" pretty well too. Let's not forget that India is a large, stable, secular democracy with a decent non-proliferation record in spite of not having signed the NPT, has a strong economic interest in remaining peaceful and friendly with China and the U.S., and is consenting to international oversight of nuclear facilities as part of this deal.
Since India has the toys and is much more stable than Pakistan,NK and Iran, it's better that they place nice than if they don't. This is the safest, most practical and pragmatic way of ensuring that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secular? No country with a caste system is secular.
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Secular? No country with a caste system is secular.
You still haven't broken the analogy. Back during the cold war we had a caste system as well, remember? It was based on the color of your skin.
By the same token, India is fighting their own caste system. Arguably it's a lot like our fight against discrimination; you run into problems that even with official government mandates that the people in the government positions to enforce that mandate are for the discrimination, so frequently ignore said mandates. Just like in our case, it's going to take generations, and it doesn't help that their caste system has been around longer than our country.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Caste itself is a religious concept
It's a "quasi"-religious concept. Religious leaders bent on preserving their power over society claim that it is, but it isn't. Normative scripture does not mandate casteism as a static system of stratification. Casteism mandates are as much true for the Muslim Imams with their "biradaris" and "Ashraf/Ajlaf" divide as it is for the Brahmanical clergy (more so actually, since the Muslim Imams get away with it without getting lynched by irate mobs, particularly the Dawoodi Bohra Dai Syednas in western India).
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, the casteism isn't state policy in India. It's a social malaise. You could just as easily say that the US isn;t a secular country because of discrimination against non-Christian minorities (and you would be wrong).
Parent
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>India is doing better as far as democracy then some of the other "BIG" countries that have recently invaded a smaller one.
So? The only country to use nuclear weapons in a war is a democracy. Ever hear of WWII? The idea that democracy means pacifist anti-nuke is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran is not a democracy since its federal government can disqualify any candidate for any reason and often does.
It is a fascist theocracy that is actively exporting its ideology. It is the worst kind of government to have a nuclear weapon.
Re:My government is hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only hypocritical if you consider all governments to be equally responsible and trustworthy on the international stage.
Which is nonsense, not all countries are created equal. Iran's government was created by a violent theocratic revolution and continues to be that to this day. North Korea was created in a violent Stalinist revolution and continues to be that to this day.
Parent
its not the revolution, its what's established (Score:4, Insightful)
in u.s. and france, democratic pluralist regimes were established, based on human rights concepts outlined and developed by 18th century enlightenment. (btw, you are still basing your entire society on these even today).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*bzzzt* - Russia was admitted to the original Non-Prof club during the Cold War by treaty, when they had a nuclear weapons fleet that matched the US'. When the Cold War ended, they had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads (up to many multiple megatons for some of 'em) and a damaged economic infrastructure (at the time) that lent itself all too easily towards selling a few of the warheads on the down-low.
We basically got very nice with Russia to prevent some jackass from buying/stealing a nuke or two and th
Re:Sweet! I'll take 5 (Score:5, Funny)
we are having nuclears for the cheapest prices
please telling us number of many you like
warm regards,
Praktah Andgambl
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The summary makes it sound like you can't buy nukes until you joing the NSG. How much is it to join the NSG? That depends, how many hookers can you hire for the UN security council?
India does not need to buy anything (Score:5, Interesting)
India has one of the largest resources for thorium. Thorium can be used in an alternative nuclear cycle that is much less wastefull and produces far less highly radioactive waste (not actinides). These reactors would probably not need solid fuel assemblies, like they are used in the west. What is for sale in the west is a technology that produces much more waste, has a risk of being turned into bombs (you can't with thorium) and keeps you dependent on delivery of very expensive fuel assemblies (that is how the nuclear companies make their money).
That last part is probably the intention: keep India (and all other buyers) dependent on a supply that you can take away again. It would be much better if India would sell some thorium reactors to the west, that would save a lot of hazardous waste.
Parent
Re:India does not need to buy anything (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Thorium is that it's a decade or two away from commercial use. India needs power NOW. And oh, they aren't mothballing their Thorium programme -- if anything progress has been good [nextbigfuture.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thorium reactor described in the article you linked to does use plutonium to overcome a problem with pure thorium reactors. Thorium gets mutated to proactinum that decays later to Uranium-233, the uranium is fissle, but the proactinum not and will smother the chain-reaction. Using plutonium gives enough oompf to keep the reaction running until the proactinum has decayed enough. But plutonium also means you will have a lot of long-halflife actinides in your waste, which is not so good.
But you are right t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose it depends on the type of "nuclear". Suppose we required all the Big Oil companies to invest in Nuclear Fusion?