Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT\ Re: India's N-test (fwd)'
| Sigh... I can't BELIEVE that I'm actually responding to this
Oh, well... At least I marked this reply as [OT].
Vishram Sarurkar <MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: PICLIST
> 1. US is the only nation, thus far, to have used the N-weapons.
Correct, Vishram... And the US has also AVOIDED using its nuclear
weapons for more years than any other country.
> 2. Maximum number of N-tests were conducted (and are still being
> conducted) by US, a whooping 1200 odd tests have been conducted thus
> far by the Yankees, followed by the erstwhile soviet (700) and China
Your information is a little inaccurate...
The US is no longer testing nuclear weapons. Before the
Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty was signed in 1996, the US had
conducted 1,030 tests, the USSR had performed 715, and China had
performed only 43.
The other two declared nuclear powers, France and Great Britain,
have performed 210 and 45 tests, respectively.
South Africa and Israel may have conducted a single joint test
in the south Atlantic in 1979, and your country has performed
three (or is it four now?): One in 1974 and two or three this
> 3. US is the only agressor in the world, in today's world; it stages
> wars and proxy wars - never for its country nor to defend it. It
> enjoys wars.
I don't even know what to say to this.
> It can assume mantle to strom the Iraqi deserts, for and on behalf
> of Kuwait. They do not even need an invitation to do that!
1. The US only acted after the UN authorized the use of force
through Security Council Resolution 687.
2. The US obtained permission from Saudi Arabia to base its
forces in that country.
3. Even though Inder Kumar Gujral, your Foreign Minister at the
time, publicly EMBRACED Saddam Hussein after Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait, India eventually cooperated with the US-led
liberation of Kuwait by allowing US warplanes to refuel in
Bombay on their way to the Gulf.
4. During your country's two-year membership in the Security
Council after the Gulf War, it hardly ever voted against the
US on any question relating to sanctions and other actions
> 4. None of the so called test ban and non-proliferation treaties
> proposed by US talk about dismantling of US N-warheads!
The START I and START II treaties require the US and Russia to
reduce their arsenals to approxiumately 3,000 warheads by the
> 5. US preaches (and practices) "what is good for americans, is good
> for the rest of the world".
Well, let's see...
The US attained independence from England; so did India.
The US is the world's largest democracy; India is the
The US is India's largest trading partner.
The US is the single largest foreign investor in India,
accounting for one-third of all foreign investment.
Wouldn't you agree that -- at least in these cases -- what's
good for our country IS good for yours?
> The real danger is with the coutries who have not toiled to get
> [nuclear weapons], but acquired [them] through other means.
No. The real dangers are with:
a. Countries whose conventional forces are so (relatively)
weak that their nuclear weapons are the only means at their
disposal for waging war against a strong adversary, and
b. Countries with nuclear weapons AND significant tension with
a neighboring Islamic nation, especially if THAT country has
nuclear weapons, too.
India, of course, falls into both categories.
> Tell them that India waited for about 25 years before the
> circumstances forced it to go for the second test. This
> reluctance on the part of India just indicates that it did not wish
> to be seen as an agressor, it never had been one.
NO COUNTRY can be an aggressor until it has powerful, reliable
weapons... But that really isn't the point.
Earlier, you mentioned that the US led the operation that
resulted in the evacuation of Iraq from Kuwait.
Don't you think that -- before this week's round of nuclear
tests, anyway -- India could have relied on the same assistance
from the US (and the UN) in the event that it was invaded or
attacked by Pakistan, China, or some other country?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the recent
tests can only weaken the relationships between India and its
potential allies... Which will INCREASE India's willingness to
use its nuclear weapons early in any conflict, since it may no
longer be able to count on the unconditional support of the rest
of the world in the event of war.
And... How is ANY action that would tend to start an arms race
in your region good for India? Would you be HAPPY to see
nuclear-tipped Prithvi and M-11 missiles pointing at each other
over the India-Pakistan border?
> Last, but not least, if anyone is not willing to look into the
> ground realities ask them to shut and ponder about the consequences
> of 1200 odd tests by the US. If 1200+ cannot harm the earthlings,
> a mere 4 tests can never do that.
Right, but the worldwide concern over India's recent tests has
very little to do with the ENVIRONMENTAL consequences of that
> I am planning to follow this posting with another one on "India
> should now sign the CTBT and NPT"
I can't wait.
=== Andrew Warren - ix.netcom.comfastfwd
=== Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California
=== http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499 (personal)
=== http://www.netcom.com/~fastfwd (business)
At 01:57 AM 5/15/98 -0800, you wrote:
> Sigh... I can't BELIEVE that I'm actually responding to this
You did a great job.
I was slammed for "baiting" him, as one person put it. To all, I apologize.
Let us keep nationalism out of this list. Cows are OK, but things like
nationalism (and I'm the Proudest American I know) really don't help learn
anything (although Andy Warren's posting is most thorough and very accurate).
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998
, 1999 only
- New search...