Indian Nuclear Program

[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.

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.