Post by thread:[OT\ Re: India's N-test (fwd)

Sigh... I can't BELIEVE that I'm actually responding to this publicly. Oh, well... At least I marked this reply as [OT]. Vishram Sarurkar <spam_OUTPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > 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 > (140+). 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 week. > 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 against Iraq. > 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 year 2003. > 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 second-largest. 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 testing. > I am planning to follow this posting with another one on "India > should now sign the CTBT and NPT" I can't wait. -Andy === Andrew Warren - .....fastfwdKILLspam@spam@ix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499 (personal) === http://www.netcom.com/~fastfwd (business)