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


Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
Mr. Vamsi,

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no choice but to accept it. =
was only one country in the world that had nuclear weapons. Those =
were essentially used in the pre-nuclear era. Ever since other countries

developed their own nuclear weapons, there has never been
a nuclear attack. Hence my point is extremely valid that nuclear weapons

serve primarily as a deterrent in the modern world, rather than an =
force. It is ridiculous and naive to think they are weapons of offense.
aim of the Indian nuclear policy needs to be towards building nuclear
weapons to serve as deterrents.

Additionally, the nuclear weapons were launched on a Japanese Empire,
not on modern Japan. There is a vast difference between the two. The
nuclear weapons did in fact destroy that empire because it no longer
exists. Nuclear weapons launched on any country destroy that country.
In the modern era, a nuclear weapon launched on a country could cause
the other country to retaliate in kind. This results in the destruction
both countries, and very likely a large portion of the surrounding =
So let me repeat, nuclear weapons need to serve as a deterrent. Not
as an offensive tool.

Additionally, you said in a previous post, "I would be quiet ashamed to
this to the brave armed forces of India that somehow the rest of the
world matters more to the people of India than the
land that they are willing to protect with their lives!!"

So what you are saying is that by deploying nuclear weapons for
offensive purposes, the people of India will not be affected? Your
entire interpretation of my statements is quite invalid. The
correct interpretation of what I said is that nuclear weapons will
not affect just some neighboring or remote region outside India.
More importantly, any nuclear response from such a region to
counter an offensive manouvre will be quite devastating to Indians.
The most direct way to provoke another country into using
nuclear weapons is by using nuclear weapons on them first.
I would quite like to hear what you will tell the "brave armed
forces of India" at that stage. Perhaps something like "Sorry,
I made a mistake and now all your families are dead. Since
we have no population left to protect, there is no need for the
armed forces any more."

So, contrary to your rash statement to the "brave armed forces
of India", I would propose that you instead explain to them
that nuclear weapons launched by India can likely mean nuclear
weapons launched by other regions on India. Which would
mean the destruction of India alongwith the destruction of the
other country. If you think the "brave armed forces of India"
should be some sort of "Jihad armed forces", then by all means
launch nuclear weapons. Because at that point neither your own
life nor the life of others matters to you any more. But in my
view, the best and purest purpose for nuclear weapons is to
serve as deterrents.

So what do I believe Indian military research should be focused
towards instead of developing purely attack-oriented nuclear

1. More safety when dealing with nuclear materials. I shudder
to think of a Chernobyl happening in India (doesn't have to be
a power plant... could just be a nuclear silo that, hmm, sorta
rusted in the rain or got cracked in an earthquake). Given
the current situation in India, I would not be surprised if some
event like that did happen.

2. Think of more ways to make other nations think twice about
attacking India with nuclear weapons. One good way is to keep
a limited arsenal ourselves (again with the aim of the arsenal
serving as a deterrent). Another way is to perhaps apply
ingenious Indian brainpower to maybe not repeat the American
mistakes and instead build a missile defense shield that
actually works! Good solid diplomacy also has the ability to
do wonders. Perhaps India should take a more proactive
stance in international diplomacy, rather than complain that
some other country is sponsoring terrorism in India and
therefore India will just sit and watch and refuse to attend
any diplomatic meetings to protect the lives of its own
citizens. (Pardon my harsh tone here, but I get rather
excited about matters like these).

3. If foreign governments do, for whatever insane reason,
decide to launch nuclear attacks on India, then we need some
sort of detection system to be able to identify and potentially
shoot down any such missiles. Considering the cost for
building a nuclear missile and the cost and danger for building a =
missile that can reliably gun down a nuclear missle, I think
I would gamble with technology and go for the smaller
missiles. (I would also keep a small nuclear arsenal, but
again only for deterrance). The only way any country can
survive a nuclear attack is by preventing the nuclear
weapons from detonating on its soil. So that is what the
aim of Indian military research is best directed towards.
If we have something reliable, then let any other country
build 10 or 20 or 5000 nuclear weapons. It will be an
enormous expense for them. We can just gun down any
missile entering or approaching India, and laugh away
any attack.

Finally, you write, "Oh really!  People in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki disagree with your statements!".
I'm not sure how many people from Hiroshima and
Nagasaki you have spoken to, but all three of the people
I have spoken to, said that their ancestors did in fact
experience an "end of the world". What they
experienced was not anger that the Japanese didn't
have any nuclear weapons during World War II. Instead
they expressed remorse that it was tragic to think that
the only way the war could be ended was to use
the nuclear bomb. They were glad that Japan did
not have nuclear weapons at the time, because if they
did, World War II would not have ended. Note that
even after the bomb at Hiroshima, the Japanese did
not surrender. It took a second bomb to get them to
stop. Many more lives would have been lost and both
the U.S. and Japan would have been the eventual
losers, if Japan would have had a nuclear arsenal at
the time and launched them on the U.S.

In the Indian case, who would you propose India
might need to use nuclear weapons against? Perhaps
the Bhutanese might become arrogant and feisty 50
years from now, and to shut them up, you would
suggest launching a nuclear bomb. After all, no
Indian military lives would be lost directly, right?
If India chooses to launch nuclear weapons against
China or Pakistan, or any other country with nuclear
weapons, I don't think either country will stand
victorious. Neither you nor I, nor your ideology
nor mine, will remain. In effect, your ideology
would have been the cause of my "murder". In my
view you would not be a national hero. You would
be a criminal.

Simply sir, the greatest benefit to all the world
is if there is peace. For there to be peace in the
world, you have to believe that something like that
can at least exist. Then all you need to do is work
towards it. Alternatively, I get the feeling you don't
think peace can exist in the world. Hence you feel
strongly that India needs to develop weapons solely
for the purpose of mass destruction, whether or
not anyone else uses those weapons on India.
Perhaps my views are not grounded in reality the
way you experience it, but at least I believe that
some day the world can be a peaceful place, with
India occupying a very important role in that new
world order. But I disagree that weapons of mass
destruction are the means of achieving that new
world order.

Rahul Mittal
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: sdcvamsi@yahoo.com=20
  To: debate@indiapolicy.org=20
  Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 4:31 AM

  Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!


  Rahul Mittal wrote:

  > I am sorry sir, but the day any country actually uses nuclear =
weapons to
  > achieve military
  > objectives, I think you and I will have no choice but to be looking
  > to the end of the world in a matter of a few days.

  Oh really!  People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki disagree with your =
  The world has not ended since then and in fact, the country that used
  weapons and continues to build even more powerful ones became even =

  Indians will NEVER forget the day when we had to stand against the =
  powers to explain to them that we will not turn our backs on our =
  security and that we will will bear any burden to protect our liberty!

  Vamsi M.

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