The Aug. 6 editorial, "Nonproliferation Spluttering," contains discrepancies with regard to India's civilian nuclear-use agreement with the United States. First, India has, since the inception of the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, opposed discrimination against nonnuclear states. In pursuing its own nuclear research and development, it has never proliferated, pirated or imported nuclear technologies, devices or materials.
Second, threats of an attack by another country are historically higher for India than for Japan. Conversely, India has never attacked any neighboring country or waged an unnecessary war. Thus it is essential for the Indian people to have a strong nuclear deterrent. Japan has no such issue, since historically it was the one that showed ruthless aggression. The U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima was just an end to World War II. So Japan should not cry that it is the only "burnt nation"; its past militaristic nature put it on that path.
Third, the argument in the editorial that keeping North Korea's nuclear ambitions in check will be difficult if Japan supports the India-U.S. nuclear deal is risible. If Japan can't achieve restraints on the North within the framework of bilateral talks, especially after failing to resolve the abduction issue in the six-party talks, it shouldn't make India suffer.
Last, India-Japan trade, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is on the increase. If Japan now were to raise silly and outdated objections concerning the NPT and CTBT, I'm sure Japan would lose a lot more than India. By not recognizing India's rising energy needs, Japan would make a big mistake that coming generations of Japanese would regret.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.