Hey wait a sec.I agree with the indian dude.No one has the right to tell anyone what to do.We got our freedom 52 years ago and will not forsake it for anything.However i am of the view that now since both countries are nuclear powers i think that America and the rest of the world should focus on the fact that these countries need peace.Pakistan is making a big effort in this regard.We have offered india open unconditional talks on the core issue and all other issues why doesn’t india accept.We have said that we would like third party mediation,however if india wants then the talks can also be bilateral.What have they got to fear.If they are on the right path as far as Kashmir is concerned and the Kashmiri people are very happy with indian atrocities and ethnic cleansing being committed there,then why the Fuck don’t they sit down for a quick solution to the issues and some traties and trade and happiness amongst the TWO MOST RESOURCEFUL NATIONS IN THE WORLD.Why isn’t the world for that.Is the world afraid that these are two third world motherfuckers that they would rather see fighting against themselves to keep them in control.I mean if India and Pakistan had peace and helped each other without then i don’t think they would have any problems.I mean Pakistan wouldn’t since all our problems are caused by india.Though India also has China to deal with since they attacked China in 1962 right before they attacked Pakistan in 1965.Who wouldn’t want nuclear weapons when you’re living with such an aggressive neighbor.
Why the double standards.
Bye
Zeeshan
It is just so hard to use nuclear weapons on your immediate neighbour, it’s a lose lose situation.
Having a world police force isn’t really that bad idea. If your actions could threaten other citizens of the planet don’t be surprised if someone with a lot of power steps in and says “stop that shit now or we’ll take away your toys”.
India aggressive against China - the nation that walked into(dammit I cant remember for the moment) and has remained there ever since against UN resolutions ?
China the nation that attacked UN forces in Korea ?
China the nation that backed Vietnam ?
China the nation that was caught spying at the top secret US nuclear research facility last week ?
China the nation that has supplied arms and materiel to half the worlds terrorist movements including the Shining path in Peru ?
Yeah all right.
India aggressive to Pakistan ? True but you fail to mention the wars started by Pakistan attacking India.
Who put their soldiers on the Srinigar pass and what was the purpose ?
If India had put its troops on to Pakistans sovereign territory I’m sure there would have been some condemnation but the rest of the world was only slightly interested knowing that Indians would eventually wrest back what is theirs under currently recognised borders.
Although India has its problems as a democracy there has not yet been a military take over but we have seen some pretty obnoxious behaviour by the dictators of Pakistan.
You point out that the military in Pakistan is less corrupt than the civilian politicians and while I do not doubt that this is true it simply shows that Pakistan has yet to learn how to govern itself properly under rule of law.
There is a sophisticated game of posturing going on by both Pakistan and India which attempts to show up the other side as being against peace while pretending to offer it.
At the moment India is not buying it, next week it could be all swap chairs.
Such manoevering would be of no concern whatsoever to the rest of the world, if you guys want to rip each others hearts out then, sad as it is, it is your business but the posession of nuclear devices in countries that are both poverty stricken and armed to the teeth do not lend a great deal of confidence.
MilTan:
I did not toss that statement around carelessly. Read my post again. The US involvement is justified in this area. I am usually highly critical of US foreign policy, but this is one time when the usual refrain of “The US is acting like a hypocritical bully.” carries a lot less weight.
Zeeshan:
I was not commenting about the merits of Musharraf or the Nawaz Sharif governments. I was saying that any bias against Pakistan might be the result of the military coup whether or not it is was for the best. Americans tend to view military coups with suspicion and the phrase “militry coup” has certain connotations.
Truthfully, I think that most Americans are too uneducated about the ethnic differences and histories of the area to form a bias. Most Americans ignorantly lump Indians and Pakistanis together.
And yes, we (and other countries) do have the right to tell you what to do when your actions will effect the rest of the world. Nuclear fallout doesn’t discriminate.
TIBET!!!
Look, don’t underestimate my ignorance on this subject; it is vast. But here is a little bit of what I do know:
-
The India-Pakistan conflict has been ongoing and unceasing. Border disputes arise seasonally, when strategic passes open up in the late spring. Both parties have been guilty of encroaching on the other’s territory in order to project power over these inroads.
-
Both nation’s militaries are built around a blitzkrieg-style, offensive war plan. Should any one of these border disputes erupt and require a larger commitment of forces, the most mobile forces will be elite, attack or counterattack forces that are trained and indoctrinated to push forward, into forein territory, as fast as possible. They’ll be the first to arrive on the battlefield.
-
The reason such a top-heavy military force was created on both sides was to emulate the success of the Israelis, who used their massive offensive power to gain territorial advantage before the United Nations could step in and stop the conflict. The controlled territory was then used as leverage to influence peace negotiations. (I would remind everyone that the Yom Kippur War led to defense preparations on the part of the United States and the Soviet Union unmatched except by that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets overtly threatened intervention should the Israelis reach Damascus, which they were approaching virtually unopposed. So the prospect of nuclear war does exist in the conflicts of less powerful nations engaged in “local” disputes.)
-
Such strategy relies on the intervention of powerful third parties, i.e. the nuclear powers working in concert under the aegis of the U.N.
-
Guess what? India and Pakistan now have The Bomb. Congratulations. We’re no longer going to fuck with you. So you’re on your own.
-
But the strategy remains. What’s going to happen when paratroopers from both sides are trapped hundreds of miles inside enemy territory? When the logistics of such endeavors breaks down after six weeks in the field? How will you extricate, when local advantage dictates that exposed, expensive, precious units of the enemy must be cut off and destroyed? What will you resort to? Diplomacy? They might all be dead by the time that gets sorted out.
What are you going to do?
I don’t understand this reasoning:
-
India and Pakistan have a right to build nuclear weapons and the disapprobation of the rest of the world is irrelevant; they should just mind their own business. (Disapprobation is principally voiced by the U.S. because, well, we have a leadership position in the modern world whether we or you like it or not, but it is nevertheless a general condemnation.)
-
The rest of the world is NOT free to act as they choose. They MUST continue to trade with India and Pakistan as before and not express their disappointment at this development or try to pressure change by imposing sanctions.
Either point can at least be made, even if I would disagree with them both. But put the two together and I feel you are being inconsistent and, yes, hypocritical.
It seems to me that nobody has been a “bully”. Sending in troops to force an action would be bullying. Sanctions are an extremely mild response that the international community uses to take action that is short of coercion. To call this bullying or “telling India what to do” is just hyperbolic rhetoric. We are simply deciding what WE will do in response to your actions.
The idea that America has the bomb so we have no place discouraging other nations from building them is silly. We built the bomb at the height of WWII in opposition to the greatest war machines ever assembled, surrounded by enemies both on the Atlantic and Pacific sides. We thought at the time that the Nazis were working on a bomb of their own. We were not at peace. Neither did we have a thorough understanding of what atomic weapons would mean, socially and politically for the future. Furthermore, we have spent no small amount of the last half century wishing we could undo that development (even if we have benefited from it occassionally), and trying to reach agreement with our enemies on how to minimize the danger.
It’s a damn fool who won’t learn from other’s mistakes until he has made them himself.
And this:
Exactly when have the superpowers threatened to bomb India or Pakistan? Be specific. I don’t believe this point has anything to do with the development of Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons. I, and I believe pretty much every nation throughout the world, sees this as an arms race between the two of you. The rapid rush by Pakistan to get their own bomb after India’s first test is evidence that at least one of YOU sees it that way, too.
The thing that worries me most about India’s initiating a nuclear arms race with Pakistan is that there was no obvious need. It shows an attitude towards nuclear weapons that is more cavalier than characterizes the other superpowers (except possibly some of the former Soviet republics). This was mirrored at the time of the first test when it was trumpeted in India as a great technological achievement and a sign of India’s prowess. I remember thinking of all the brilliant Indians I have met, and particularly those who were physicists; I remember reading about the top-notch nuclear plants that power many sections of India. Who the hell ever doubted that India COULD build a bomb? But that India WOULD build one was very disappointing. It was disappointing that a country as prominent throughout history in philosophy and spiritual insight as India could be so blind to the large-scale ramifications of the spread of nuclear weapons. The notion that “now the world will take us seriously as a major power” was bruited about, as if India’s economic problems (the real route to modern nations’ power) would vanish in a mushroom cloud.
I, and I’m sure the rest of the world will cease to condemn India and Pakistan eventually. Whether we will ever rest easy with your superpower status depends on whether you show that you can go through decades of tension with your enemies without succumbing to temptation, or accidentally entering a nuclear war. You would also do well to show that you can maintain a safe arsenal, and not let the technology leak out to other hands.
In other words, you can have the bomb if, like the rest of the superpowers, you never use it (so why did you build it?). And I am absolutely comfortable with THAT much bullying. In fact, in the abstract, I’d favor the use of troops to enforce it on you; I’d favor the use of force by other nations to ensure that WE don’t use the bomb. I say in the abstract because unfortunately there is no practical way to force wisdom on either of us, if we don’t find it within our own borders.
Do YOU trust your government to show such wisdom into the indefinite future?
Once again, I think my position here might have been misinterpreted. I think its a godawfully stupid idea for the wars to be happening.
But let me ask this question: Why was John Foster Dulles’ paradigm of Mutually Assured Destruction, combined with immediate escalation accepted as a great way of keeping everybody in line, but when India and Pakistan try doing it as well, it’s looked down upon?
Cassdave:
I too can’t remember the year the China thing occurred, but its interesting to note that the reason this happened was because India and Pakistan were too involved with each other to notice that China started building infrastructure in the northeast corner of Kashmir 
Sofa King:
True, the strategy in a situation like that would most likely be nuclear escalation. But it has been shown that MAD, while leading to increased tension, also promotes stability. The US, for the longest time, let it be known that any overt moves by the Soviets on US interests would result in immediate escalation. Why not be critical of that strategy as well? Maybe because it worked?
MilTan - Still playing the Devil’s Advocate against his better judgement
I think the key thing to remember is that JFD’s idea “was accepted”. Past tense. It’s not so clear anymore.
APB’s response came in as I was hitting reply…
I never said that the sanctions were unjustified. The US can do whatever they please. Again, I just wanted to illustrate the mindset of India’s and Pakistan’s leaders.
How is telling India to accept the CTBT, while at the same time shooting down said treaty in Congress not telling them what to do?
I never said that the superpowers threatened India and Pakistan specifically. But lets look at Korea, when a nuclear escalation was a very real threat. Essentially, the US did threaten the country. I was just using that to fill out Sofa King’s analogy, to better illustrate that the Big Five aren’t necessarily as calm and collected about their grenades as it originally appears.
Since you have chosen to take one single line out of my argument to pick out, I will do the same to you:
(emphasis mine)
Los Alamos anyone? China’s suddenly advanced launch systems technology?
Ok, back to rational argument again.
I will give you this: The prime impetus behind building the nuclear bomb was simply to promote national pride, and to shore up faith in the BJP (the ruling party which has a rather tenuous hold on the government).
But at the same time, this is not quite as different as Congess shooting down the CTBT to promote their own political agenda either.
Your argument of “if you’re never going to use the bomb, why build it” could just as well be applied to every other nuclear power in the world. Then why did they build the bombs? For the same reason India and Pakistan do so now. Because they are involved in an incredibly tense situation, and nuclear weapons are seen as a bit of an equalizer.
MilTan
I agree with APB9999. This country twice got involved in other people’s wars (War of 1812, WWI) because it continued to trade with belligerents. What right does Pakistan have to demand that we continue trading with them, when our history shows us that long term stability is more important that short term economic gain?
MilTan
How so? The fact that we have the grenades does not make them any less dangerous. We know nukes are bad. We believe that not having them is worse. We’re not claiming that Pakistan having nukes is bad for Pakistan. We’re saying it’s bad for us, and so we’re going to discourage it.
Zeeshan
Well, i think you answered your own question. Any country in which a military coup is a “good thing” is not a country the US wants to have nukes.
MilTan
I don’t think anyone thought that MAD was better than no nukes at all. It wasn’t that it was “a great way of keeping everybody in line”; it was just the best that could be managed.
The Ryan:
I understand that fully… it feels like the general attitude around here is that the US is doing it in some altruistic kick, instead of in self-interest alone.
And since Congress has made it abundantly clear that the “no nukes at all” idea isn’t going to happen, why shouldn’t the same theory continue to be applied?
MilTan
I’m gonna shoot myself in the foot here and say that I don’t know jackshit about the India/Pakastan situation.
But, however, this much I do know:
The nuclear arms race pretty much bankrupted the former USSR, and was the main factor in the US deficit. Do you really think it’s wise for more countries to start it?
Maybe the US is speaking from experience: don’t do what we did.
Personally, to the UN, military coup means “dictatorship.”
It’s bad enough Stalin had the fucking bomb.
While we’re at it, why don’t we let the Balkans have nuclear weapons (if they don’t already)…
I’m just saying why do you want them to have more weapons? Good god, that’s the LAST thing we need in this world!
It seems to me that when you promote the good of the many over the good of the few, and you are part of that many, you are acting both altruistically and out of self interest.
What gets my goat is the way that the posters from India & Pakistan can’t grasp the fact that they’re nations are not respected , even though they have the Bomb.
Two of the most raggedy-*ssed countries on Earth; nations whose agricultural, economic, & industrial systems are in a near-perpetual verge of collapse— & the only thing these jokers can think of is killing each other over something as stupid as religion, and building A-Bombs to help them do it.
After the Bosnian/Balkans insanity; after the Hutu-Tutsi genocide , we in the West have gained a renewed awareness that people will slaughter each other over anything. You people slaughtered each other over religion before the British conquered you; now, after you have finally gained self-determination, you are doing it again.
What you have failed to do is grasp that atomic weapons are not merely big bombs. They have consequences far beyond the simple devices that your military leaders are familiar with.
And you will slaughter people around the world from the fallout cloud.
No. The World does not respect you.
Pakistan & India need to grow up. Fast.
You don’t have much time left.
The Ryan:
But thats just the point. The US consistently tells the world to do one thing, and then goes off and does something else. e.g. the CTBT, or, for that matter, any treaty that Americans happen not to like.
Just because occasionally self interest aligns itself with altruism doesn’t mean that this is always the case. The US always acts in self interest. And, if you ask a Realist, everybody always acts in self interest. Thats just the way the world works. The US just needs to get off their high horse and admit it once in a while.
Bosda:
You really have a bone to pick with India and Pakistan, don’t you? Don’t you understand that it is just that kind of rhetoric which antagonizes other countries?
You also seem to enjoy tossing out thinly veiled insults about issues that you really don’t grasp very well. If you go back about a hundred years or so before the British came, you’ll put yourself smack dab in the middle of Mughal India. And guess what? You’ll find a Hindu majority state ruled by Muslims. Look a little further, and you’ll notice an incredibly tolerant state, where Hindus and Muslims co-existed peacefully.
It was only during the decline of this empire that tensions arose…
The simple devices our military leaders are familiar with, my foot. Has it crossed your mind that India was the sixth official nuclear power? Indians have known about the ramifications of nuclear energy since the late 50s.
In general, though, could you try to be slightly less insulting in your next post? Else I’m gonna start referring to all Americans as arrogant thickheaded pricks. And I don’t want to do that, because that would place me in that category as well.
To the rest of the posters: I’m really sorry about that last paragraph. I’m just really steamed at Bosda.
MilTan
MilTan: Uhhhh dude. Nobody has been hiding the fact that the US is advocating this position for its own self interest. Nobody has denied that. But WTF does that have to do with justify the escalation of a nuclear situation between two hostile countries???
The possession of nuclear weapons never validates a countries existence. It doesn’t give your countrry a bigger dick. You don’t become the badass of the block that people fear and respect. Did Iraw hesitate to go to war with the US? No, because they understood that, barring their own use of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. would never use nukes.
If your country possessed nukes and Pakistan did not, would Pakistan hesitate to attack? Hell no!!! Because they know that India would never drop nukes because the international condemnation; the US, China, Britain, etc… would come down on them like a ton of bricks.
So other than as a trophy, what is the use of India/Pakistan’s nukes? Especially in India which has a shitload of other problem that could be addressed with those billions.
Does the hypocrisy that you persistently mention lie within the fact that the US still owns nuclear weapons? Two distinctions:
-We haven’t had our fingers on the button for decades.
-We have been disarming, albeit slowly. Congress is a bunch of asses. The majority of this country wants disarmament and voices their opinion.
The US has not come down on Pakistan and India in certain regards and then violated those mandates! The US has experienced the horror of nuclear attacks and a nuclear agenda. We’re speaking from experience. Wherein lies the hypocrisy???
I do agree with you that Bosda is a bit too ornery though…
actually nukes are just big bombs… the ones that india and pakistan have probably would be shot down and even if they werent they arent going to make that big a difference.
Nukes arent as destructive as peopel would like to think… a island exploded in the mediterranian and its explosive force was stronger than all the nukes of the world combined and the most that happened even in china was some dust for a few days. Most bigger nukes are “clean” and dont have that much fallout while the ones that do could destroy about a city block. So really no one cares except the misinformed.
Are you on crack!!!
Seriously. Are you?
First of all, India and especially Pakistan are notorious for using dirty materials.
Secondly…jeez! You’re just frickin’ wrong. I don’t think that I need to even rebut what you said.
I dare you to say what you said to someone who is Japanese.
Grendel:
Say what??
So what? If the US is definitely not going to use them, why have them? If they’re going to stop caring about nukes, why shoot down the CTBT?
And no, the US hasn’t experienced the horrors of atomic war. Japan has. What the US has experienced was how atomic weapons can bring a quick, albeit bloody, end to a war.
Thank you… now that that is out of the way, please explain to me why a sovereign nation would want to accept the commands of a country acting solely in its own self interest?
And what is the use of the US’s nukes? or China’s? or France’s? or Israel’s?
And, might I point out that the countries you mentioned as coming down on India and Pakistan “like a ton of bricks” happen to be one with nukes?
It doesn’t matter what the US public thinks… the US government is what dictates US positions in international relations.
MilTan