[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: India conducts Nuclear Tests....
There is nothing new and I don't think it is rocket science to figure
out that making nuclear weapons has mixed consequences. It does cause
an upsurge of patriotism, pride, and jingoism (carry a big stick) but
it is also a diversion of resources from more productive pursuits.
I have commented on the material in the first two pages.
Sanjeev Sabhlok[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
>You mirror my views on this. In response to your question on why the
>still wants to carry on with its stockpile, please visit (some of these
>might be outdated: please let me know of other web sites that discuss
The material at the above web page is the predictable stuff you'd
expect from an indoctrinaire right wing think tank. The theme is
"defense" though this term is used in the classical Orwellian sense-
the true meaning is ability of US to subjugate or attack without any
fear of consequences, maintaining a fear and paranoia of some
nameless, formless enemy, and also guaranteeing that military spending
be kept high so that it is funnelled into un-accounted classified
expenditures that enriches the likes of the patrons of the heritage
foundation and diverts spending from social programs.
This material is not worthy of our consideration.
The above is a report on a south-Asian conference on disarmament. There
is not much to agree or disagree with. Some of the material is
informative for example the stuff quoted below. It also reports a
compromise proposal presented by retd general Sundarji that the
nuclear powers reduce their arsenals by 90% and sign a "no-first use"
agreement. I see that as a starting point to the eventual goal of
a total ban. It does point out the US "no-first use" stance but also
the uselessness of this to a country attacked by a country with
stronger conventional forces.
All three of the non-American delegations have their own reasons
angry with America, but the Indians show it the most. From their
of view, America is puffing on an untold number of nuclear
telling them not to smoke on the grounds that, someday in the
they might die. No parent ever had a harder sell.
The Chinese feel that they are being criticized for molehills of
sales while America exports mountains-and tries to tell them how
run their country with intrusive human rights demands. But they
too polite to say much about it in public.
And the Pakistanis, who have a right to real complaints over the
one-sidedness of the Pressler Amendment, were remarkable in
avoidance of anti-American attitudes. No doubt even the
economic pressures applied to them diminish in significance in
comparison with the dangers and attitudes they see in India
OR . . .
In the course of this discussion, it became evident that the
delegates most interested in no-first-use had completely ignored
very large extent to which the United States (and other states)
already adopted virtual no first-use policies while, at the same
they enormously exaggerated the strategic significance of the
no-first-use declarations they called for.
An American delegate (Stone) made these two points:
a). The United States had a "negative security assurance"
adopted at the United Nations in 1978 and constantly repeated
which assured non-nuclear states (so long as they had endorsed
non-proliferation treaty or a comparable undertaking) that it
not use nuclear weapons against them. (An exception for
states engaging in aggression in alliance with nuclear
for North Korea-no longer applied to any real situation since
relevant alliances with aggressive nuclear powers no longer
Accordingly, the U.S. was free to use nuclear weapons first only
against nuclear powers. But it was unthinkable that it would use
against Britain or France, unnecessary now against Russia (which
capitalist state suffering conventional inferiority), and
of the question against China. Meanwhile the non-signatory
Israel, Pakistan and India had never feared nuclear attack from
U.S. In sum, the U.S. had no significant possibility of using
(Indeed, U.S. officials had assured FAS that nuclear weapons
be used against Iraq, under this doctrine, even as Iraq was
threatening U.S. troops with another weapon of mass
Experts on South Asia confirmed, as did the surprise of the
delegates, that this argument was absolutely unknown in South
Asia. State Department officials please note .
b). A no-first-use statement, even a no-first-use convention
nuclear powers signing it, was neither verifiable nor reliable
would not have the effect the Indian delegates claimed of
basis for nuclear weapons. This follows because, even if all
powers assert no-first-use, any specific nuclear power cannot
sufficiently on these declarations to throw away its nuclear
And as the Pakistani delegates emphasized on more than one
those who sought nuclear weapons as a defense against
attack-rather than as an effort to deter nuclear attack-would
their positions that much improved by no-first-use statements by
conventionally stronger adversaries.