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.
Bookmarks