Nuclear Proliferation....Wanna take a Ride?
MIRVman
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/treaty/treatytext.tt.html
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 vehicles 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.
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