[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> destroy life and electronic equipment within a certain perimeter!  In
> words, low yield nukes are very efficient in achieving military
> which is why India should develop them before anyone else.


So you are actually advocating the deployment of nuclear weapons
for reasons other than to serve as a deterrent. I am sorry sir, but the
any country actually uses nuclear weapons to achieve military
I think you and I will have no choice but to be looking forward to the
end of the world in a matter of a few days.

> > India will never be able to use a Nuclear weapon as the
> > sanctions that will
> > follow will ruin the country. Moreover its own cities are vulnerable
> > nuclear attack!!
[Jasmin G Shah]

What do you mean international sanctions that will follow? There will be

no "international" body left that would impose sanctions. A nuclear
would be the end of human civilization as we know it.

Friends, India has entered the nuclear age. Conventional war theories
no longer applicable in this age. Using a weapon of mass distruction is
only the end of the enemy; it is also the end of your own country. In
era, if your enemy has a sword, you cannot scare the enemy with a bigger

sword. Both swords can kill. The only thing both swords will do is
the other person from using his/her sword first. That is the power of
a country with nuclear weapons.

So, please stop bickering about developing or spreading nuclear weapons,

and instead focus towards resolving more important issues through
meaningful dialogue. Which important issues?

Cross-border terrorism? *laugh*. Kashmir? *laugh*. My question to
everybody is this:

Do you think that the Indian Government is interested in actually
the Kashmir issue at all? Or is the issue merely something they would
rather leave pending for many many years to come, in the interest of
either diverting attention away from other matters central to India's
development and progress? If there is any interest in actually resolving

the issue, then why play a double-faced game with Pakistan? So what if
Pakistan rejected offers to come and discuss the issue with India in the

past? If they show signs of willingness to discuss the issue now, then
does Jaswant Singh have to deny the Pakistani invitation? After all,
the Indian Government committed to resolving the issue? Clearly the
issues that need resolving are *not* that of Kashmir or of cross-border
terrorism. The issues that need resolving are a rethinking of what the
priorities are for our nation, and that in order to achieve any progress

whatsoever, there needs to be dialogue. So what if Musharraf is a
dictator. If India had trouble communicating with previous Pakistani
governments, then at least he is heading a *different* government. A
government that has completely revamped earlier foreign policies (e.g.
with reference to the Taliban). I don't think there has ever been a
better time than right now to negotiate with Pakistan. The government
in Pakistan is and will make drastic changes in foreign policy more
easily now than ever before. Musharraf doesn't have a whole
legislative assembly that he has to convince before making any
agreements with India (Yes I believe some agreements can be reached).
For once we can make friends with our neighbour.

"Friends?", you ask? The concept might sound strange to all those people

that have been yelling and shouting anti-Muslim slogans on this email
debate. But then I don't think I'd like to be friends with you anyways.

Rahul Mittal

This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/