3 ms·

The event in this story took place in 1954 and India was sanctioned in 1998. I'd expect that there's a wealth of information between those two time periods that

by kodah 5y ago

The event in this story took place in 1954 and India was sanctioned in 1998. I'd expect that there's a wealth of information between those two time periods that give evidence that we shouldn't be; you're also talking about post-Cold War time period in which, although non-linearly, the world has been attempting to disarm.

jazzyjackson 5y ago
> world has been attempting to disarm. evidently not.
- kodah 5y ago
  It's a challenging task. You're dealing with nations who think a nuclear weapon to their name will give them representation on the world stage. In reality, it doesn't, because there's a lot more factors at play for representation in the global landscape than fission. So, as powers rise the US (and other countries) have attempted diplomacy in various forms to curb deviation from the conclusions we reached at the peak of the arms race. I don't think that'll end, and my prediction is that we'll go through this with state-sanctioned hacking as well.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    no one thinks having nukes gives them representation on the world stage, people think having nukes keeps the Americans from attacking you if they don't like something you're doing. Of course trying to get nukes will make the Americans attack, so you try to hide it, unless you already are doing stuff that are making the Americans make attacking noises so then you start to ramp up the nuke production because maybe you can get some and stop the Americans or maybe the Americans will back off if you agree to back off with the nuke production. on edit: so in other words, people try to get nukes as deterrents, not as status enhancers. You might want to deter a neighbor of course, like Pakistan and India, but there are countries in almost every region that might want to deter the U.S should it be necessary. I suppose in the near future countries may also wish to deter China.
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      > no one thinks having nukes gives them representation on the world stage, people think having nukes keeps the Americans from attacking you if they don't like something you're doing. This oversimplifies it. How does that logic apply to Britain, France or Israel?
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        it's true it oversimplifies - hence why I added my part about it being deterrence in the edit. Israel of course had deterrent reasons to have nuclear weapons, the same for Britain and France. Obviously countries that are under U.S protection are not as a general rule fearing U.S invasion (unless big changes occur suddenly in a Presidential election) but they must also fear the loss of U.S protection through minor changes in a U.S election. If the U.S is currently providing their deterrence, it makes sense to invest in some of their own in case the protection is ever removed. All that being said, Israel, Britain and France got their nuclear weapons in the past. I think anyone who is trying to get Nuclear weapons in the present time have a pretty good chance in wanting to deter the U.S.
      - linschn 5y ago
        France having nuke is definitely about asserting its sovereignty over US interference. Read de Gaulle's biography if you want to know more.
        lostlogin 5y ago
        Yes, France wants to be beholden to no one - they don’t fear American attack though (except perhaps on their culture).
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        They want to be actually sovereign states. Having nukes is pretty much a prerequisite for the reasons GP explained. Even if, back when the countries you mentioned were developing their nuclear programs, their overt focus was mostly deterring USSR, it's hard to imagine they weren't thinking about their relationship with the USA either.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  The world has literally an order of magnitude less nuclear warheads than it used to have - 13k vs 100+k.
Dah00n 5y ago
> I'd expect that there's a wealth of information between those two time periods If you have gathered information but doesn't share it freely you have no right to point fingers at anyone else who does the same testing no matter the time difference. The US doesn't share the results and knowledge gained freely so it have zero right or moral ground to point fingers at anyone on weapons testing. If the knowledge had been shared India would have had less reason to do the tests. The US is partly to blame.
- kodah 5y ago
  India's first weapon test was in 1974 with Smiling Buddha. The sanctions occured in 1998, after the cold war, and India had already developed enough weaponry to be a "no first use" country with triad capabilities (air, land, and sea). All that to say, they didn't depend on the US for knowledge like that.

by kodah 5y ago

jazzyjackson 5y ago

> world has been attempting to disarm. evidently not.

kodah 5y ago
It's a challenging task. You're dealing with nations who think a nuclear weapon to their name will give them representation on the world stage. In reality, it doesn't, because there's a lot more factors at play for representation in the global landscape than fission. So, as powers rise the US (and other countries) have attempted diplomacy in various forms to curb deviation from the conclusions we reached at the peak of the arms race. I don't think that'll end, and my prediction is that we'll go through this with state-sanctioned hacking as well.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  no one thinks having nukes gives them representation on the world stage, people think having nukes keeps the Americans from attacking you if they don't like something you're doing. Of course trying to get nukes will make the Americans attack, so you try to hide it, unless you already are doing stuff that are making the Americans make attacking noises so then you start to ramp up the nuke production because maybe you can get some and stop the Americans or maybe the Americans will back off if you agree to back off with the nuke production. on edit: so in other words, people try to get nukes as deterrents, not as status enhancers. You might want to deter a neighbor of course, like Pakistan and India, but there are countries in almost every region that might want to deter the U.S should it be necessary. I suppose in the near future countries may also wish to deter China.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    > no one thinks having nukes gives them representation on the world stage, people think having nukes keeps the Americans from attacking you if they don't like something you're doing. This oversimplifies it. How does that logic apply to Britain, France or Israel?
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      it's true it oversimplifies - hence why I added my part about it being deterrence in the edit. Israel of course had deterrent reasons to have nuclear weapons, the same for Britain and France. Obviously countries that are under U.S protection are not as a general rule fearing U.S invasion (unless big changes occur suddenly in a Presidential election) but they must also fear the loss of U.S protection through minor changes in a U.S election. If the U.S is currently providing their deterrence, it makes sense to invest in some of their own in case the protection is ever removed. All that being said, Israel, Britain and France got their nuclear weapons in the past. I think anyone who is trying to get Nuclear weapons in the present time have a pretty good chance in wanting to deter the U.S.
    - linschn 5y ago
      France having nuke is definitely about asserting its sovereignty over US interference. Read de Gaulle's biography if you want to know more.
      - lostlogin 5y ago
        Yes, France wants to be beholden to no one - they don’t fear American attack though (except perhaps on their culture).
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      They want to be actually sovereign states. Having nukes is pretty much a prerequisite for the reasons GP explained. Even if, back when the countries you mentioned were developing their nuclear programs, their overt focus was mostly deterring USSR, it's hard to imagine they weren't thinking about their relationship with the USA either.
PeterisP 5y ago
The world has literally an order of magnitude less nuclear warheads than it used to have - 13k vs 100+k.

Dah00n 5y ago

> I'd expect that there's a wealth of information between those two time periods If you have gathered information but doesn't share it freely you have no right to point fingers at anyone else who does the same testing no matter the time difference. The US doesn't share the results and knowledge gained freely so it have zero right or moral ground to point fingers at anyone on weapons testing. If the knowledge had been shared India would have had less reason to do the tests. The US is partly to blame.

kodah 5y ago
India's first weapon test was in 1974 with Smiling Buddha. The sanctions occured in 1998, after the cold war, and India had already developed enough weaponry to be a "no first use" country with triad capabilities (air, land, and sea). All that to say, they didn't depend on the US for knowledge like that.