Indian Nuclear Program

[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.

[macsen rufus]

@ Banquo - thank you

[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?

[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.

[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.