5 ms·
India is less a security threat than a destabilization threat. I'm sure the US is more worried about them firing nukes at Pakistan than California.
by rqebmm 10y ago
India is less a security threat than a destabilization threat. I'm sure the US is more worried about them firing nukes at Pakistan than California.
- actuator 10y agoI don't know on what you are basing the destabilization threat on. India has a no first usage policy on nuclear weapons [1] and has shown no intent of using the weapons. Also in all the wars in which India was involved, it was never the aggressor. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#India.27s_no-first-use_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...
- mmmBacon 10y agoThe first strike policy is irrelevant in this context. What matters is capability and parity. If a country develops a nuclear capability that they didn't have before, in his case weapon delivery, this is proliferation. This puts pressure on other states to come to parity with that new capability. In this case that pressure would be likely on Pakistan.
- sremani 10y agoThis western view of Pakistani "parity" is mother of all nuisance. US literally funded Pakistani proliferation with billions of aid, which every one knew was being diverted, while those guys were hiding Osama in their cantonment. Yes, Pakistan would be eating grass if it were not Saudi and American aid.
- gnipgnip 10y agoThere is also reason to believe that the CIA snuffed out Bhabha. It's admirable that while the China obtained its tech from USSR, India led by Homi Bhabha used a civilian Canadian reactor to do it all by themselves.
- Brig303 10y agoAnd the sad part is all of this happened as Pakistanis were killing and aiding those killing American soldiers. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-pakistan-policy-sheer-madness-12894?page=show http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-pakistan-policy...
- andromeduck 10y agoUh what about the Forward Policy that directly lead to the 1962 Sino Indian war?
- golergka 10y agoHave you seen Dr Strangelove?
- bzbarsky 10y ago> Also in all the wars in which India was involved, it was never the aggressor. That's a bit of rewriting of history right there. I suppose you will claim that India's involvement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_... was simply connivance and instigation by the government, not active participation by the Indian military? But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Portuguese_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Portuguese_India was definitely the Indian military, not just random groups supported by the government. You could argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Indian_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Indi... was an instance of Pakistan attacking first, but note that India was actively arming and training insurgents inside what was at the time Pakistan. So it's hard to claim that this is an instance of Pakistani aggression without at the same time viewing the fairly symmetric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 as an instance of Indian aggression. Personally, I would consider the latter as Pakistani aggression, and the former as Indian aggression.... It's also hard to say who was the aggressor in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_conflict because both sides were acting basically equivalently as far as I can tell.
- AkshayGenius 10y agoHow can you possibly compare the Indian armed action to regain occupied territory and her sovereignty back from the Portuguese to anything else? It was the only time India had to resort to military action, and it was shortly after her independence.
- bzbarsky 10y ago> How can you possibly compare the Indian armed action to regain occupied territory and her sovereignty back from the Portuguese to anything else? Quite easily. The claim was that India was never the aggressor, not that all the aggressions were justified by some extenuating circumstance or national interest or whatnot. The "never the aggressor" claim clearly doesn't hold for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Portuguese_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Portuguese_India. I'm not saying that India shouldn't have done it, note, just that India has in fact used military aggression when it felt its national interests warrant it, which is perfectly normal for nation-states. We can have a long discussion about whether we expect such situations, where national interests are judged to warrant military aggression, to arise in the future. But that's a discussion that should be had, not dismissed by appealing to untrue claims about history. > It was the only time India had to resort to military action Did you stop reading halfway though my comment? Seriously, I think India has done a quite good job, as nation-states go, at not attacking its neighbors. But claiming things like "it was the only time India had to resort to military action" just doesn't look like it's supported by the facts to me. "One of the few times", yes.
- simula67 10y agoWhy is this concern not valid for China or Russia ?
- anichhangani 10y agoFYI: India doesn't need an "ICBM" to nuke pakistan.
- rajathagasthya 10y ago> India is less a security threat than a destabilization threat Uh, what? This is complete bullshit. Where do you get this kind of garbage from?