(Replying to PARENT post)

This is because any mature rocket technology can trivially be adjusted to be a nuclear weapons delivery platform. By assisting India you're paying for their ICBM development.

Maybe the line shouldn't be drawn at rockets, but unless you think we should have free & open markets for nuclear weapons I daresay you think the line should be drawn somewhere.

๐Ÿ‘คavar๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

>> This is because any mature rocket technology can trivially be adjusted to be a nuclear weapons delivery platform.

There is also the issue of maintaining the capability domestically. If someone else is too cheap it would destroy the local capability. Imagine the US losing the ability to launch it's own satellites - like it lost the ability to launch people.

That said, there needs to be a way to make domestic launches competitive, so helping SpaceX or others while blocking foreign competition seem like a good idea all around. The goal should be to maintain domestic capability while hindering foreign nukes - not to maintain some company monopoly.

๐Ÿ‘คphkahler๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

> By assisting India you're paying for their ICBM development

India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. Also, India has done well without the assistance of the US in space technology and will continue to do so. So if the US doesn't want to assist in technology, it's not going to be a show stopper for India. It will continue to eat at the small satellite launch business.

๐Ÿ‘คrajathagasthya๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

American outlook on this issue needs a more pragmatic rethink in my opinion.

India will build any technology that it needs given sufficient time and money. Time is not something that USA has anymore. It's global influence is only going go down with time.

At least in my opinion it makes lot more sense for USA to see India as a potential borrowed knife/insurance against China and help her have good defense capabilities as well as build strong economic ties across all possible avenues.

It appears that trade and economic exchange is a much more important factor to avoid full scale war than anything else.

๐Ÿ‘คtn13๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

It's funny how US is okay with providing India with Uranium, but space launch contracts? Oh no! They could build ICBMs with that tech!
๐Ÿ‘คzeusk๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

The terms set by the US government all have to do with pricing:

http://spacenews.com/customers-of-indias-pslv-rocket-say-ind...

I think the idea that it's primarily a security concern is very misleading.

Protectionism can always, always be framed as a matter of national security.

๐Ÿ‘คRodericDay๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Imagine a world without nuclear weapons. We could progress so much further by combining mankind's efforts rather than limiting our potential because of "security constraints".
๐Ÿ‘คameen๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Huh. Reminds me of the plot of metal gear solid 3.
๐Ÿ‘คwebkike๐Ÿ•‘9y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0