Saturday, March 18, 2006
Nuclear proliferation...Wanna take a Ride?
Should we be very concerned about both India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. Some say the more members added to the nuclear club, the more chances for someone to use them.
It is strange that India is being targeted by sanctions considering that the US and France conducted nuclear tests in the '90s - similarly before signing the test-ban treaty - and reported the exact same reason for them i.e. we were “Completing computer simulation models to make further tests unnecessary”
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) http://www.ctbto.org
Why are some concerned ?, because we don't want more nuclear nations. That much being said, India has some good reason to believe that it needs these types of weapons to protect the peace, in particular being neighbors with both Pakistan and China (China will be my next BLOG)
Why is it okay for France or the US to have nuclear weapons whereas it isn't so for India ?
Reluctance would only be implied if the original nuclear powers were contemplating using their weapons against the new nuclear powers, make any sense?
Why can't we understand why one powerful country would be reluctant to have another country become just as powerful? People and countries do desire control over their environment, and it is only natural to resist losing that control.
Just as it is only natural to try and acquire more control over one's environment, as India is doing. The Clinton administration was quick to condemn India for their first nuclear tests, but barely uttered a peep over what US intelligence describes as an underground nuclear test in Russia 8 years ago !
The United States has not condemned either Russia or China for enhancing India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs and weapons delivery systems. I think "free trade" has been taken to the extreme with this administration, and if there is money to be made, they seem to ignore any problems that might interfere with business. The US doesn't do much business with India, so they think they can afford to act tough on weapons violations.
It is strange that India is being targeted by sanctions considering that the US and France conducted nuclear tests in the '90s - similarly before signing the test-ban treaty - and reported the exact same reason for them i.e. we were “Completing computer simulation models to make further tests unnecessary”
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) http://www.ctbto.org
Why are some concerned ?, because we don't want more nuclear nations. That much being said, India has some good reason to believe that it needs these types of weapons to protect the peace, in particular being neighbors with both Pakistan and China (China will be my next BLOG)
Why is it okay for France or the US to have nuclear weapons whereas it isn't so for India ?
Reluctance would only be implied if the original nuclear powers were contemplating using their weapons against the new nuclear powers, make any sense?
Why can't we understand why one powerful country would be reluctant to have another country become just as powerful? People and countries do desire control over their environment, and it is only natural to resist losing that control.
Just as it is only natural to try and acquire more control over one's environment, as India is doing. The Clinton administration was quick to condemn India for their first nuclear tests, but barely uttered a peep over what US intelligence describes as an underground nuclear test in Russia 8 years ago !
The United States has not condemned either Russia or China for enhancing India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs and weapons delivery systems. I think "free trade" has been taken to the extreme with this administration, and if there is money to be made, they seem to ignore any problems that might interfere with business. The US doesn't do much business with India, so they think they can afford to act tough on weapons violations.
All of a sudden, India is viewed with open hostility. Not congratulations, "Welcome to the club", but are faced with economic sanctions. I really don't think having nuclear missiles is necessarily bad, what would be bad is if India and Pakistan had Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) (MIRV”S will be addressed in a separate BLOG) capabilities. MIRVing is a missile turned into several missiles as each re-entry vehicle is programmed to strike a separate target. Now that is a problem, is India or Pakistan developing this technology?
It's not a question of :"If the US has MIRV's, shouldn't all other nations also have MIRV's in order to be fair?"
The opposite side, the moral majority, quotes “ The US Administration has apparently given military assistance to a country that could very well threaten the existence of the US, in the future.”
A very patronizing attitude the West has shown toward developing countries.
I believe the recent Indian nuclear tests have raised a totally disproportionate amount of international racket.
In terms of nuclear weapons, I really can't understand. Neither the US nor France lose anything when the Indians build nuclear weapons. The only people who lose are the Indians, who spend scarce money to build expensive weapons.
Strategy
In the short term, this might make a conventional attack on India less likely, and thus reduce the risk of war. But Pakistan is now advancing a nuclear program, and that involves a risk that such weapons would be diverted to use against Israel, which would indeed involve extremely grave risks for the world.
Food for thought: As India is a poor country, and with some illiberal tendencies towards non-Hindu minorities such as the Sikhs, can we be confident it will indefinitely remain a democracy.?
However: There is some anti-immigrant sentiment in France as well, and religious bigotry and racial tensions in the US. If the situation in India develops agreeably the Indians might dismantle their nuclear weapons later on. (as South Africa did)..
In conclusion, most non-nuclear countries desire weapons of mass destruction, if only for their deterrent value. The cost of a program is extremely high, both direct and non-direct, such as potential sanctions.
I believe the recent Indian nuclear tests have raised a totally disproportionate amount of international racket.
In terms of nuclear weapons, I really can't understand. Neither the US nor France lose anything when the Indians build nuclear weapons. The only people who lose are the Indians, who spend scarce money to build expensive weapons.
Strategy
In the short term, this might make a conventional attack on India less likely, and thus reduce the risk of war. But Pakistan is now advancing a nuclear program, and that involves a risk that such weapons would be diverted to use against Israel, which would indeed involve extremely grave risks for the world.
Food for thought: As India is a poor country, and with some illiberal tendencies towards non-Hindu minorities such as the Sikhs, can we be confident it will indefinitely remain a democracy.?
However: There is some anti-immigrant sentiment in France as well, and religious bigotry and racial tensions in the US. If the situation in India develops agreeably the Indians might dismantle their nuclear weapons later on. (as South Africa did)..
In conclusion, most non-nuclear countries desire weapons of mass destruction, if only for their deterrent value. The cost of a program is extremely high, both direct and non-direct, such as potential sanctions.
What can I do? Sit and write my feelings down in a public domain atmosphere and Pray that our leaders know the right path.
MIRVman
# posted by Nuclear Citizens in Motion : 3/18/2006 03:09:00 PM
