Should India have nuclear weapons?

Hi

I'm new here. Found this forum to be interesting. I have one question for you all.

I'd like to know what your opinions are on India actively seeking and developing nuclear weapons. Does she have an independent status as opposed to countries like Iran, North Korea or Pakistan even the Uncle Sam keeps her under the radar?

Thanks for your comments.

I think anyone that can devlope a nuke, willling to develope a nuke, responsible to have nuke, able to protect a nuke has the right to a nuke. India certainly is such a country although I am chinese and don't like the idea of a nuclear india. there is nothing that anyone can do to a nuke india, period.

tx hawksss,

there is nothing that anyone can do to a nuke india, period.

good point. but has it become so necessary for india to go nuclear and actively persue nuclear deterrents? who are or were the threats for india to go nuclear? Granted, the know-how was there since 1960s...but why the sudden change? Pakistan? China? Or a new world order?

[edit on 7-10-2004 by aryaputhra]

I guess first it is a kind of necessity for detterent reasons. I remember George Fernandez said that the no. 1 reason for india to have a nuke is because of a threat from china, which doesn't really exist. The last conflict we had was in 1962, but in order to reduce political pressure from the west, saying so is a nifty move to appease US, japan, etc. It might sound negative, but it is true.

Psychologically, it is probably a matter of power symbol. All 5 UNSC members are nuclear powers.

I think india being a nuclear power is inevitable.

India has about 150 nuclear warheads....it's had them for awhile now too. There's video of indian underground nuclear tests. Pakistan has nukes too.

It also has nuclear tipped ballistic missiles capable of reaching deep into China.

jeez, get with the times guys.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Kozzy]

kozzy

We all know that. you missed the point entirely. The reason behind this question is because of recent talks between Indian and Pakistan, in which NPT is a key issue.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Hawkssss]

Originally posted by Kozzy
India has about 150 nuclear warheads....it's had them for awhile now too. There's video of indian underground nuclear tests. Pakistan has nukes too.

It also has nuclear tipped ballistic missiles capable of reaching deep into China.

jeez, get with the times guys.

Yes, I know about the AGNI, PRITHVI missiles which can penetrate deep into neighbouring territories. They also have PSLV, GSLVs that can easily be converted to ICBMs. My question is more on the necessity of NUCLEAR deterrents and what makes India actively seek such WMDs.

Hawkssss, I recall George Fernandez saying that. I think it was a matter of pride for the rightwing BJP, since congress had the ability but never gave the go-ahead.

On the other hand, I don't see any particular instigating factor for India to have nuclear weapons. But then again, you cant change history.

agree, my friend. I don't think we will ever see another military exchange between our two nations.

I believe that its about time India aquired Nuclear Weapons, for greater detterence. And to close the Nuclear gap with China, also if both Inida and Pakistan are armed with Nuclear Weapson, the Likeliness of Those two countries going to war is very low

Hey, am new on this site too. Keen on discussing 'regional' matters more with corresponding people. So hope there are a lot of Indians, Pakis, Chinese, Japs etc. here!

Nuclear weapons are a necessity for India as they live in a nuclear neighbourhood. It serves as a deterrent to an escalation of conflict. No offence Hawkss but according to me India is 'conventionally superior' to ALL its neighbours especially w.r.t. the navy and Air force in terms of weaponry, technology and most importantly training/professionalism.The recent air combat exercises between US F-15 jets and suppossedly inferior Indian Migs and Sukhois prove this.Check it out here.

vayu-sena.tripod.com...

Hence in order to 'discourage' such conventionally 'inferior' parties from using the 'nuclear trump card' as a 'arm-twisting' method, it is necessary that we display the same strengths.

As for 'military exchanges' with these neighbours in the near future, i seriously doubt it, and a major reason for that not happening is...everyone has nukes

How about a REAL question like:

Should ANYBODY have nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Hey, am new on this site too. Keen on discussing 'regional' matters more with corresponding people. So hope there are a lot of Indians, Pakis, Chinese, Japs etc. here!

Prefer Japanese if you don't mind

Originally posted by Corinthas
How about a REAL question like:

Should ANYBODY have nuclear weapons?

?!?!?!?

The fact is there are Nuclear weapons technology and therefore it is very difficult to answer a unlealistic question.

India has nuclear weapons, but that is down to natural progression. Should america have nuclear weapons??????? They don't like the idea of india having nuclear capabilities............they want to be in that exclusive group.

who is more of a threat to world peace? india or the U.S?????????

They are more of a threat than any other nation

India has nuclear weapons, but that is down to natural progression. Should america have nuclear weapons??????? They don't like the idea of india having nuclear capabilities............they want to be in that exclusive group.

who is more of a threat to world peace? india or the U.S?????????

They are more of a threat than any other nation



Very credible point my friend , very credible indeed!

the only state which poses a severe nuclear threat is north korea. sorry to sound like bush but they are a rogue state and want in on the nuclear club. this is a country who according to the cia world factbook spent an est. 22.9% of their GDP on the military in 2003.
india's weapons are purely for defense, north korea are building them for what seems to be for aggression. it is these type of countries countries which should not have nukes.

I'am Indian, Punjabi to be exact.

I'am not a proponent of India's currest infautuation with aquiring Nuclear weapons, or any other technology that does not help the average, poverised -- mentaly and physicaly -- person in India. India wants to be fed, educated, and capable of putting her children to sleep without confrontation. India is polluted with the filth of oligarchs who know nothing but thier own greed; India cannot even give her children the rights of, life, freedom and liberty; Children die simply for being born into the worship of a lower diety, spit on, used as slave labour, and in some cases, raped: India has mastrubated itself into a neverending cycle of birth-death.

Untill India can prove that it is capable of conquering itself, it will never be able to conquer the world.

Deep

No, But the DO have it, and for that matter thier neighbours Pakistan and China have them so it is a moot point.

It should also be noted that in history that when major potentially opposed and aggressive political systems have aqquired nukes direct and large scale conventional strife seems to have been replaced with low scale (usually proxy) brushfire wars and terrorism (which unfortunately the instigators have lost control of)

Look at the US/UK/France on the one hand and the former USSR and China on the other.

Tiny Israel once it achieved Nuclear status. They are still surrounded by hostile arabs but now its Intafada not "6 day war" and "Yom Kippur 73" with massive conventional forces.

India and Pakistan clash, but they both demonstrated the commonsense to backoff and now Pakistans own insurgents in Kashmir are recognised as a danger to Pakistan itself. They may still clash but they will not escalate.

Ditto China -v- India.

Even basket case stalinist NK....why do you really think the US didnt hammer them instead of Iraq (besides not being able to find Bin Laden in Afghanistan).....because in all probability they ALREADY have nukes and the risk of a nuclear exchange is unthinkable.

9/11 traumatised the USA...even if it was only one bomb what would losing Seattle or L.A. do to them? The US could wipe NK off the map, but that prospect wouldnt thrill Japan SK China and Russia would it. The ultimate collateral damage. A couple of those countries wouldnt just sit by and be irradiated....I think not.

But I don't think anyone else should be allowed to aqquire them especially where an unstable government or dictatorship is concerned. God knows what would happen.

Originally posted by Kenshin

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Hey, am new on this site too. Keen on discussing 'regional' matters more with corresponding people. So hope there are a lot of Indians, Pakis, Chinese, Japs etc. here!

Prefer Japanese if you don't mind

Thousand apologies my friend ,no offence intended!

Originally posted by nilzzo
the only state which poses a severe nuclear threat is north korea. sorry to sound like bush but they are a rogue state and want in on the nuclear club. this is a country who according to the cia world factbook spent an est. 22.9% of their GDP on the military in 2003.
india's weapons are purely for defense, north korea are building them for what seems to be for aggression. it is these type of countries countries which should not have nukes.

Right on!! Even paki nukes are in danger of falling into the wrong hands, and IMHO their nuclear weaopns could be the ones going of in american cities (not as direct attack of course) but as a result of them being captured, re-wired and shipped to the US by islamic fundamentalists

Unfortunately, any country that wants to pull its ass out of Third World economics these days has to have nukes, or be closely affiliated politically with a nation that has lots of nukes.

So, yes, nukes for India are somewhat of a necessity for security at a minimum.