Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: Indian Nuclear Program

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: Indian Nuclear Program

    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.

  2. #2
    Member Member scotchedpommes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,550

    Default Re: Indian Nuclear Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    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]
    Last edited by scotchedpommes; 07-28-2006 at 00:14.
    it's the **** that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come

  3. #3
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: Indian Nuclear Program

    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.

  4. #4
    Come to daddy Member Geoffrey S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach
    Posts
    4,028

    Default Re: Indian Nuclear Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    And nuclear weapons are always a threat.
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    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?
    "The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr

  5. #5
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Indian Nuclear Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
    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.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO