Indian Nuclear Program

[Ice]

Opinions? I honestly don't think that we should be helping the India devleop their civlian nuclear program. They have not signed the NNPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty)
and have thumbed their noses at the rest of the world by making nuclear weapons. If they would sign it and abide by the treaty by destroying their nuclear weapons I would have no trouble supporting them. I really hope Congress votes this down, but unforunately, it doesn't look that way.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Well for one thing I think they will deffinetly feel safer with them because of their radical neighbors; Pakistan. I think it's great that we're helping because as you know, too many people live in poverty in India because of the lack of proper power supply. If the United States were helping with the military nuclear program I might agree with you, but I see no harm in helping with the civilian program.

As for not signing the NNPT, I'd say when Pakistan signs it, India probably will too. They'd both have to do it at the same time. If you haven't heard (from being in Europe for the past few weeks), you might be shocked to hear about some rescent terrorist bombings in India.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/30/india-sunday051030.html

Just wanted to show you that, so you know tensions are not slowing between the two. :shame:

:bow:

[Geoffrey S]

It's a dangerous area to play around in, what with Pakistan, China and India having nukes and not liking each other much (certainly Pakistan and India). Certainly it's dangerous to think along lines of helping India along as a counter against Pakistan; that kind of approach has led to bad situations in smaller scale areas, let alone with those two.

If the United States were helping with the military nuclear program I might agree with you, but I see no harm in helping with the civilian program.
There's harm in it with Iran; why not India? I know they've already got nukes, but advanced civilian technology still advances military technology.

[Ice]

Well for one thing I think they will deffinetly feel safer with them because of their radical neighbors; Pakistan.
Radical neighbors? Nuclear weapons were hardly needed against Pakistan. The population of India was about 9 to 10 times larger than that of Pakistan with more advanced militray hardware. I'm not understanding why nukes ever made you feel safer. Pakistan developed them in reponse to India.


I think it's great that we're helping because as you know, too many people live in poverty in India because of the lack of proper power supply.
I can't link this because I read it in the economist, but nuclear power is only going to supply 4% of India's power.


If the United States were helping with the military nuclear program I might agree with you, but I see no harm in helping with the civilian program.

The technology could be used for military purposes also. It is not solely civilian. Like I also said before, if India wants the technology, sign the NNPT.


As for not signing the NNPT, I'd say when Pakistan signs it, India probably will too. They'd both have to do it at the same time. If you haven't heard (from being in Europe for the past few weeks), you might be shocked to hear about some rescent terrorist bombings in India.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/30/india-sunday051030.html

Just wanted to show you that, so you know tensions are not slowing between the two. :shame:

I have heard. This happened before I left. Pakistan's government was not responsible for the attack, a small group of terrorists were. I don't see how nuclear weapons will help this. Like I also said before, the reason Pakistan has weapons is because India obtained them in the first place.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Radical neighbors? Nuclear weapons were hardly needed against Pakistan. The population of India was about 9 to 10 times larger than that of Pakistan with more advanced militray hardware. I'm not understanding why nukes ever made you feel safer. Pakistan developed them in reponse to India.

I can't link this because I read it in the economist, but nuclear power is only going to supply 4% of India's power.


The technology could be used for military purposes also. It is not solely civilian. Like I also said before, if India wants the technology, sign the NNPT.



I have heard. This happened before I left. Pakistan's government was not responsible for the attack, a small group of terrorists were. I don't see how nuclear weapons will help this. Like I also said before, the reason Pakistan has weapons is because India obtained them in the first place.

Well that 4% will help many people. It will not do a great deal, but anything will help.

I personally don't think India has any other plans than to use it for civilians, but I have a biased being half Indian. I don't see the problem, but I can see where you're coming from, but it seems the Congress sees it my way.

:bow:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

EDIT:Bias not biased...^^

[Ice]

Well that 4% will help many people. It will not do a great deal, but anything will help.

I personally don't think India has any other plans than to use it for civilians, but I have a biased being half Indian. I don't see the problem, but I can see where you're coming from, but it seems the Congress sees it my way.

:bow:

My point with the 4% was: Why put so much money and time into something that isn't going to have that huge of a payoff? It is better spent somewhere else. We aren't just giving India this for free they still have to pay for it. We are giving them access to it.

India still has a larger nuclear program under development. It seems they do have other plans and there is a large percent chance it may be used for militray reasons.

All this is going to show the world is that if you are friends with the United States, well damn any international treaty. You can do what you like and still get rewarded. What excuse do have for not letting Iran and North Korea have nukes?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

My point with the 4% was: Why put so much money and time into something that isn't going to have that huge of a payoff? It is better spent somewhere else. We aren't just giving India this for free they still have to pay for it. We are giving them access to it.

India still has a larger nuclear program under development. It seems they do have other plans and there is a large percent chance it may be used for militray reasons.

All this is going to show the world is that if you are friends with the United States, well damn any international treaty. You can do what you like and still get rewarded. What excuse do have for not letting Iran and North Korea have nukes?

Well we could say they scare us. :2thumbsup:

As for India (this is a joke), remember we're all peace loving people like Ghandi remember? :2thumbsup:

[Oaty]

My point with the 4% was: Why put so much money and time into something that isn't going to have that huge of a payoff? It is better spent somewhere else. We aren't just giving India this for free they still have to pay for it. We are giving them access to it.?

4 percent of 1 billion is 40 million.

[Ice]

4 percent of 1 billion is 40 million.

~:thumb:

Damn, how did I ever pass my math courses!?

[Papewaio]

Australia won't sell Uranium to India until it signs the NPT even though there has been some pressure to do so.

India also thinks that there are going to be no consequences if it doesn't sign the NPT because they think their growing economy is too large a pie for the US to ignore. Essentially they think they can buy out the US to ignore the NPT.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

They can probably do that.

However, I have less qualms about India gaining additional nuclear abilities than many other countries, because they are a democracy, they don't hate us for supporting Israel to my knowledge, and they have China to worry about, too.

[Papewaio]

Australia sells Uranium to China as they have signed the NPT...

Past behaviour is a good sign for future behaviour, but it isn't ironclad.

Nor would I be to happy with a country that thinks because of its growing economic clout they can ignore treaties that are supposed to create a more peaceful world. Their intent speaks volumes by their statement that they can ignore treaties as they are too sweet and economic deal for the US... they have you by the short and curlies and aren't afraid to apply the squeeze.

Imagine what they will be like when they really need something...

[scotchedpommes]

However, I have less qualms about India gaining additional nuclear abilities than many other countries, because they are a democracy, they don't hate us for supporting Israel to my knowledge, and they have China to worry about, too.

This kind of view, and the belief of some that particular countries have more
right to nuclear weaponry is baffling at times. None of us, including the states
that do not feature on international buddy lists, want to face annihilation. And
assuming a country that doesn't fit the 'democracy' ideal does launch an attack,
they would face a devastating retaliation. They themselves are fully aware of
that. To disregard that is rediculous.


All this is going to show the world is that if you are friends with the United States, well damn any international treaty. You can do what you like and still get rewarded.

This is nothing groundbreaking, is it?

[Ice]

This kind of view, and the belief of some that particular countries have more
right to nuclear weaponry is baffling at times. None of us, including the states
that do not feature on international buddy lists, want to face annihilation. And
assuming a country that doesn't fit the 'democracy' ideal does launch an attack,
they would face a devastating retaliation. They themselves are aware of that.



This is nothing groundbreaking, is it?

Not exactly, but it paints a much clear image than if we would condem India for posessing such weapons and demand they be destroyed before we shared nuclear technology with them.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Neo - what kind of country would you prefer having nuclear weapons? One that is ruled by an autocratic government with specific, aggressive agendas or one that is Westernizing and has a healthy democracy? I'm not talking specific countries now, but in general. Are you saying that you cannot see the difference between the two?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Neo - what kind of country would you prefer having nuclear weapons? One that is ruled by an autocratic government with specific, aggressive agendas or one that is Westernizing and has a healthy democracy? I'm not talking specific countries now, but in general. Are you saying that you cannot see the difference between the two?

Good point. ~:thumb:

[scotchedpommes]

Neo - what kind of country would you prefer having nuclear weapons? One that is ruled by an autocratic government with specific, aggressive agendas or one that is Westernizing and has a healthy democracy? I'm not talking specific countries now, but in general. Are you saying that you cannot see the difference between the two?

I see no reason for preference. An autocratic goverment with specific,
aggressive agendas is as dangerous now as a 'healthy' democracy with specific,
aggressive agendas. The point is, none of us will use these weapons, because
to do so would mean the end, particularly for these 'non-specific' autocratic
governments to which you refer.

[macsen rufus]

To date nuclear weapons have only ever been used by a "healthy" westernised democracy. When the bomb goes off, the damage is not ameliorated by the nature of the government that launched it.

As for India's nuclear electricity programme, despite rapid industrialisation, India is still largely a nation of villages, and it is the villages where electrification would greatly help the poorest communities. In the absence of massive investment in a national grid that nuclear electricity will do them no good - it simply can't reach them. A decentralised, locally-controlled programme of renewable generation would be a much greater benefit to the rural poor.

Nuclear generation would basically just favour the urban and power elites, depsite all the hand-wringing about bringing development to the poor.

[Banquo's Ghost]

To date nuclear weapons have only ever been used by a "healthy" westernised democracy. When the bomb goes off, the damage is not ameliorated by the nature of the government that launched it.

As for India's nuclear electricity programme, despite rapid industrialisation, India is still largely a nation of villages, and it is the villages where electrification would greatly help the poorest communities. In the absence of massive investment in a national grid that nuclear electricity will do them no good - it simply can't reach them. A decentralised, locally-controlled programme of renewable generation would be a much greater benefit to the rural poor.

Nuclear generation would basically just favour the urban and power elites, depsite all the hand-wringing about bringing development to the poor.

Very well said. :2thumbsup:

[macsen rufus]

@ Banquo - thank you :bow:

[Avicenna]

I don't know about you, but myself I feel that this sounds awfully like the Cold War, America trying to find buddies against the PRC.

Anyway, limiting help will at most hinder India, but it will not stop them. Take a look at what they've achieved: getting into space without any other country's help, and developing their own nuclear weapons. Don't assume that they can't do it themselves.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Or find someone else to help them out. We aren't the only nation with nuclear energy sources. When it comes to making some dough, there are some countries probably more inclined to ignore international law than the United States.



I see no reason for preference. An autocratic goverment with specific,
aggressive agendas is as dangerous now as a 'healthy' democracy with specific,
aggressive agendas. The point is, none of us will use these weapons, because
to do so would mean the end, particularly for these 'non-specific' autocratic
governments to which you refer.
Most nations wouldn't use nuclear weapons directly. However, if a terrorist organization just happened to acquire a nuclear warhead or dirty bomb, who do you think probably gave it to them? Odds are, I think, not a healthy democracy.

Plus, rationality doesn't seem to afflict our friends in North Korea. If that regime was about to be overthrown, I could see them launching nuclear weapons just for the fun of it, to take a bunch of people with them.

Western Democracies tend not to fall into that mindset.


To date nuclear weapons have only ever been used by a "healthy" westernised democracy. When the bomb goes off, the damage is not ameliorated by the nature of the government that launched it.
So a free, open democracy is just as likely to start throwing nukes around as a state ruled by a dictator with his own hatreds and ambitions?


Nuclear generation would basically just favour the urban and power elites, depsite all the hand-wringing about bringing development to the poor.
Uh, so what? :inquisitive:

[Pannonian]

Most nations wouldn't use nuclear weapons directly. However, if a terrorist organization just happened to acquire a nuclear warhead or dirty bomb, who do you think probably gave it to them? Odds are, I think, not a healthy democracy.

Greatest likelihood is one of the former Soviet states, left with no economy, no bureaucracy, and more nukes than they know what to do with. Even if they don't sell them for hard currency, they could lose track of them through lack of bureaucracy. Same applies to North Korea in spades.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Most of those countries aren't healthy democracies, huh?

And I getting specific, I could see a nuclear Iran giving materials for a dirty bomb to Hezbollah or some other terrorist organization. If the bombers were good, Israel couldn't even be sure Iran gave them the goods. Net effect: Iran achieves a nuclear strike without much chance at retaliation. Thousands or millions of Israelis die.

[Pannonian]

Most of those countries aren't healthy democracies, huh?

And I getting specific, I could see a nuclear Iran giving materials for a dirty bomb to Hezbollah or some other terrorist organization. If the bombers were good, Israel couldn't even be sure Iran gave them the goods. Net effect: Iran achieves a nuclear strike without much chance at retaliation. Thousands or millions of Israelis die.
Low chance of Iran giving them to terrorists, as material is used, gets traced back to Tehran, Tehran gets turned to glass. Former Soviet states are under the protection of Russia, so they are immune to the US, while depending on the situation North Korea is similarly under the protection of China. If Iran produces nukes, one can be sure they'll keep a mighty close eye on them, since they know everyone else will.

Look at the balance between risks and benefits. The most powerful country in the world is already looking for excuses to bomb Iran, up to and including using nukes. Iran will be looking to keep its rep clean when it comes to the ultimate weapons. If they produce their own nukes, they won't use them unless the US or Israel pre-emptively nukes them, or carry out a ground invasion. They certainly wouldn't give them to outsiders for a spiteful attack on Israel - far too great a risk and cost for far too little benefit.

[Samurai Waki]

Not too mention Israel is pretty stern about the use of retaliation in the event of a WMD going off within their borders. Not only would Iran get turned into a Nuclear Wasteland, but Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, the UAE, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Krygzstan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakstan would be suite to follow. That is why there should be more apprehension in the region.

[Avicenna]

Alexander: well, the non 'healthy-democracy' USSR hasn't used any of their nukes when they collapsed. Also, how can you just claim that the 'healthy western democracies' won't use nukes when they've got their backs against the wall? There hasn't been such a situation. Yet.

[macsen rufus]

So a free, open democracy is just as likely to start throwing nukes around as a state ruled by a dictator with his own hatreds and ambitions?


Let's see: nukes used by "free, open democracies" ..... 2
Nukes used by dictators, terrorists and other fruitbats ..... 0

Can you see a trend here????

[Strike For The South]

Let's see: nukes used by "free, open democracies" ..... 2
Nukes used by dictators, terrorists and other fruitbats ..... 0

Can you see a trend here????
That however is a bit misleading

[macsen rufus]

Which nation ahd a "first strike" nuclear policy during the Cold War?? Any guesses?

[Strike For The South]

Im guessing the good ol USA. However just becuase we used the bomb dosent mean other countries still get a free pass. We saw what the bomb did and decided this kind of thing should be regulated. India is the most stable country in the world not to mention the on going feud with Pakistan dosent help much ethier. We need to look at there here and now before bringing up the old THE US WAS ONLY ONE TO USE THERE NOOK speech

[Geoffrey S]

Plus, rationality doesn't seem to afflict our friends in North Korea. If that regime was about to be overthrown, I could see them launching nuclear weapons just for the fun of it, to take a bunch of people with them.

Western Democracies tend not to fall into that mindset.
Much as I dislike countries such as North Korea, it makes no sense to accuse them of such a lack of rationality. If the people in charge were so irrational I'd find it hard to imagine them staying in power for so long. Were such a strike to happen, it would be coldly calculated murder, not irrational.

Stating that Western democracies don't fall in that mindset is absurd. Whereas North Korea is constantly facing the threat of a large military force, having it's leadership removed as a consequence, and essentially have their back to the wall, no western nation is in that situation (aside from perhaps Israel). Were say France in such a situation I could well imagine nukes being used as a threat, and perhaps also used.

Uh, so what?
Money can better be invested in building up a decent infrastructure to supply the needy with electricity.

That said, more reliable power to the cities of India is important if they want economic growth.

Which nation ahd a "first strike" nuclear policy during the Cold War?? Any guesses?
US, but that means nothing. Although the USSR stated they would never launch a first strike, who knows what their actual strategy was. All this says is how much more open the US were about their (nuclear) policies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Geoff, old bean, you are correct. Developing a nuclear weapons program for your country is quite rational. Every country that has nuclear weapons is treated differently than those that do not -- and usually to their political power advantage.

Moreover, the "dictators and assorted fruitbats" -- thanks Mac -- aren't necessarily irrational when they behave as brutal thugs. Some degree of paranoia is rational when you are running a dictatorship -- Stalin's model works smoothly if you set aside the evil thing.

[yesdachi]

I say, let capitalism in, there are plenty of private sector companies willing to help out for a price. India has made a mess of their burocratic system and has made it very difficult for business to develop there (too much red tape). I saw a John Stossel show a while back about the difficulties (much needed) electric companies from other countries were having getting permission to set-up an operation there, I remember one company that after years of negotiations finely received approval to build but could not get approval to run power lines.:dizzy2:

I don’t really care if they have nuclear power plants but I definitely don’t think my tax dollars should go to funding them when there are companies lining up to work with them. Isn’t there a French company that has made some of the US’s nuclear plants? India seems to just want to try and get some free stuff before they shell out the cash themselves or loosen up their rules and regs.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Looking back, I had thought the Indians were paying us for help. I don't know if they are, and that actually does make the feasability a valid concern. So I concede that point, especially since it appeals to my "screw the world and taxes" instinct.

macsen rufus - the biggest nuclear threats are ustable, undemocratic regimes with such weapons, and terrorists with connections to such regimes. Terrorists especially, since such organizations often don't have homelands that can be harmed by nukes in the same way as a soveirgn nation can be.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that the US is equally likely to use nuclear weapons as North Korea. We have hundreds of times NK's capabilities, but we won't exercise it. I have less faith in that glorious worker's paradise.


In general, I just rather trust India, who is friendly to us, could be fighting the same enemy as us (both radical Islam and potentially China), and is a growing democracy. Compared to nations like Iran or even Pakistan.

Geoffrey S - let's say North Korea's government is going under. Most of the army is marching with the general populace on Pyongyang. Kim Jong-Il and a few of his generals are holed up in a bunker and it looks like the end. What does he do? Sit and take it or go out in a blaze of glory? I'd say the latter, but I'm no expert.

In contrast, a healthy democracy is less likely to be put under those circumstances. Firstly, internal revolt is unlikely, since they could just vote in new leaders. Coups are similarly unlikely.

Outside aggression is generally further reduced by the tendancy of democracies to support each other. If France was militarily threatened by some outside force (but not a nuclear one) then probably Europe and the USA would also be opposing such a force.

I don't think France is as likely to be put in that situation.

And nuclear weapons are always a threat.

[scotchedpommes]

In general, I just rather trust India, who is friendly to us, could be fighting the same enemy as us (both radical Islam and potentially China), and is a growing democracy. Compared to nations like Iran or even Pakistan.

Amusing. Backing still seems to shift towards Pakistan.


President Bush designated Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, making it eligible, among other things, to purchase advanced American military technology. In May, 2006, The Bush administration announced a major sale of missiles to Pakistan, valued at $370 Million USD. [2]

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It was bad for Pakistan to become a nuclear power back in the seventies or eighties. It still isn't a good thing, President Bush's trust in the iron fist of Musharaf notwithstanding.

[Geoffrey S]

Geoffrey S - let's say North Korea's government is going under. Most of the army is marching with the general populace on Pyongyang. Kim Jong-Il and a few of his generals are holed up in a bunker and it looks like the end. What does he do? Sit and take it or go out in a blaze of glory? I'd say the latter, but I'm no expert.
Whatever else, they're not suicidal. I'd say it's more likely they surrender to international courts, just like usually happens. Again, you're assuming the North Korean government is irrational, whereas I assume the opposite; they're certainly no more irrational than the average democratic state, just more brutal. They're out for their own personal survival by now, and using nukes doesn't assist that at all.

But again, placed in such a situation I can't imagine the NK government reacting any differently from any other nation.

In contrast, a healthy democracy is less likely to be put under those circumstances. Firstly, internal revolt is unlikely, since they could just vote in new leaders. Coups are similarly unlikely.

Outside aggression is generally further reduced by the tendancy of democracies to support each other. If France was militarily threatened by some outside force (but not a nuclear one) then probably Europe and the USA would also be opposing such a force.

I don't think France is as likely to be put in that situation.
I know I used France as an example myself, but that was purely taking the situation NK is in right now and applying it to a democracy with nukes. Whether such a situation was likely to happen is besides the point. Perhaps a country such as Israel would have been a better example of a stable democracy that could be in such a situation.

However, India borders on a recent enemy, Pakistan. It also borders on China, not on very friendly terms. Stable democracy or not that's a tense position to be in for any government, and I don't see it as safe for the US government to go meddling in such a hornet's nest. It's also faced with more terrorism on its own soil than most democracies, and until recently Kashmir was consistently in danger of flaring up. So I don't believe India can be declared stable, at least not enough to meddle with its nuclear capabilities.

And nuclear weapons are always a threat.
Yes.

the biggest nuclear threats are ustable, undemocratic regimes with such weapons, and terrorists with connections to such regimes. Terrorists especially, since such organizations often don't have homelands that can be harmed by nukes in the same way as a soveirgn nation can be.
With the first statement I agree; however it's hard enough to cover up government involvement with terrorists, let alone if nuclear weapons are involved. Were that the case they would be traced back to the source, who would receive the full deserved punishment; I can't see a nation taking that risk, not yet in any case.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that the US is equally likely to use nuclear weapons as North Korea. We have hundreds of times NK's capabilities, but we won't exercise it. I have less faith in that glorious worker's paradise.
If you and your country are so confident that is the case, why do you still have nukes at all?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you and your country are so confident that is the case, why do you still have nukes at all?

Actually, while we do have a number of them left, most of the ICBMs have been de-commissioned (or in-progress thereof) and the gravity bombs, artillery shells, and cruise missile warheads are mostly in secure storage and not on active deployment. The days of the hair-trigger MAD "system" are mostly in the past.

Short of being on the receiving end of a nuclear attack, there are very few scenarios in which it would be deemed appropriate to use nuclear thunder to make our point.

The situations in India/Pakistan/China and Israel/Iran? and NK?/China/Japan? are frought with much more tension as they are closer to the old MAD concept. MAD seems to have worked in the Cold War, but it wasn't exactly a relaxing process for the 45 years between the first Soviet Bomb and the breakup of the CCCP.