Indian Nuclear Program

[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.