Indian, Chinese and Iranian Nukes

[chefencer]

Is India a counterbalance to China? Is this a viable policy? Does our relationship with India have an impact on the Iranian nuclear issue? Do you recall fondly the days of Cold War M.A.D. simplicity? (Remember the movie "Wargames"? I watched "The Day After" not long ago and found it more affecting as a parent, but the story didn't age well.) I await your opinions with anticipation....

"Wolverines!...." - from "Red Dawn"

[Morion]

Don't forget the Pakistanis! That is who India is concerned with. This is a scary topic because as technology progresses this capability is going to sprout up again and again. As far as the Chinese go I don't think we have anything to fear from them. They don't want to destroy their best trading partner.

[Epee_Pox]

What would China gain from war with the USA or Europe?

I don't think of India as a counterbalance to anything. If anything, it's a slightly destabilizing influence. Pakistan is a bit worse, as it is somewhat instable and ungoverned in its own borders. Iran is a lot worse, for the obvious reasons.

But I don't see China as a huge threat, for some reason.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

But I don't see China as a huge threat, for some reason.

Probably the one that goes along the lines; they know which side their bread is buttered - nuking LA would just lead to the overthrow of the ex-communists by legions of suddenly unemployed widget makers (terrifying when their rilled up I can tell you).

Of course not sure where that leaves the logic of establishing Iran as an international pariah...........

[chefencer]

This was what got me thinking...

"Rice characterized the agreement as a chance to bring India's nuclear activities into international standards, touted India's record on proliferation and said it would help strengthen US-Indian relations after decades Cold War estrangement. Inviting India into the international nuclear fold will enhance security, she said.

Rice acknowledged, however, that the deal did nothing to curtail India's nuclear weapons arsenal, but reminded lawmakers that efforts to do so in the past did not succeed.

'It is entirely clear now that those past nonproliferation policies did not achieve their goals,' Rice said. 'In fact, they had no effect on India's development of nuclear weapons.'

India has emerged as a key strategic partner for the United States in Southeast Asia and is a potential counterweight to Chinese influence.

Trade between the two countries has increased rapidly, and Rice maintained that helping India with nuclear power would help it cope with their increasing energy needs.

But Republican and opposition Democratic lawmakers are concerned that cutting a deal with a country that has not joined the NPT will send the wrong signal to nations unfriendly to the United States who also have nuclear ambitions. "
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/n...eal_with_India

[Inquartata]

1) Clearly, India's weapons are no sort of counterbalance to China...yet. But that's probably India's goal for the future. After all, demographic trends predict that, ceteris paribus, China will someday supplant the US as global hegemon---and that India will later supplant China. Given that, India will need to be able to deter Chinese military intimidation intended to curtail its economic dominance. Or so India may believe.

2) If China has nothing to gain from war with other great powers---or more accurately if it believes it has nothing to gain from such war---then why is it spending so much on expanding, modernizing and improving its military to make it more technologically competitive with those of the other great powers?


3) The NPT is a canard. It's a bit like locking your car doors: it keeps honest people from being tempted, but will not deter the malefactor with intent. It seems to be the Administration's position that if the NPT cannot prevent enemies like North Korea and Iran from cheating, what good is it to insist on applying it to allies?

[ReverseLunge]

Today’s Letter: A Reader in India Says the West Is Dead
From: Adnan Khan: [e-mail him]
Your concern for your white brothers and sisters seems to be warranted.

First, the defeated and desperate Islamic peoples are bleeding your resources in a seemingly endless war of terror, and guerilla wars your army cannot win.

Second, the amount of scientists and engineers from China and

India is so crushing and dominating it seems that in fifty years you will not be able to withstand it. It’s like ten Japans into one.

Third, the Soviet Union as bad as it was, was a white power that still propagated the illusion of white supremacy. Now that it has fallen, the world will witness something it hasn’t in three centuries.

The undisputed superpower of the earth will be China. With China’s plan to have the ten greatest universities on earth and its blistering 10% economic growth, it can achieve this.

Behind China will be India. What the world will witness is a non-white superpower. If India is second, the whities won’t even be on the map.

And consider that the third place USA will be, by 2050, more than half Latino and black.

In the 2050 US, Asian Indians and Chinese will dominate your upper echelons financially and academically, and blacks would dominate sport and entertainment. Also Jewish people would continue their dominance.

All white and non-white kids will wake up every day in a world where no white country is even close to power. Their psyche will be tremendously affected.

The boost to the Asians will be enormous and the morale of the whites will shrink to non-existence.

The old whites will sit on the fence and say, “I remember when whites ruled,” and the Chinese and Indian men will laugh and ask, “When was this?”

Well don’t worry. You had your time. I am I writing this from my mansion in India.

I got a job from some American who was incredibly ignorant and miserably inadequate at accounting.

I have no respect for Americans anymore. What was once a great culture built on learning and decency has nothing but a bunch of ignorant immoral morons. Such is your fate.

Maybe your grandson can apply for immigration to China one day...or maybe the Chinese will remember how you guys let us in.

Peace.

[Epee_Pox]

This looks like fun, anyone else want to go? I like the words "free of charge" and "refreshments will be served," particularly.


JOHN R. BOLTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Speaking on:

KEY ISSUES BEFORE THE U.N.: IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND U.N. REFORM


Introductory Remarks:

HON. DENNIS G. JACOBS
U.S. Circuit Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The University Club
1 West 54th Street
New York, NY 10019

Reception 5:45 P.M.
Speaker 6:30 P.M.
Refreshments will be served.

The event is free of charge and open to the public. Reservations are not required.

(The Club requires gentlemen to wear jackets and ties and ladies to wear clothing of equivalent formality.)

[chefencer]

Well, coat and tie...consider the effort...

[chefencer]

This could make Mr. Bolton's remarks interesting:
"In the past few weeks, President Bush has released a document on national-security strategy that declares Iran to be the single biggest threat on the planet. Vice President Dick Cheney has warned that Iran will face serious consequences if it continues to enrich uranium. Joseph Cirincione, a sober-minded nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment, writes in the new issue of Foreign Policy:

For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran."

"That's the game of chicken. Two cars speed toward each other, head-on, late at night. There are three possible outcomes. One driver gets nervous and veers away at the last second; he loses. Both drivers veer away; the game's a draw. They both keep zooming straight ahead; everybody dies. Back in the early '60s, the flamboyant nuclear strategist Herman Kahn wrote that one way to win at chicken was to detach the steering wheel and wave it out of the window; the other driver, seeing you can't pull off the road, will be forced to do so himself. The dreadful thing about the current showdown between America and Iran is that both drivers seem to be unscrewing their steering wheels; they're girding themselves so firmly in their positions—the Americans saying Iran's enrichment is an intolerable threat to security, the Iranians saying it's an absolute ingredient of national integrity—that backing down is a course neither is willing to take."

A Global Game of Chicken
Can Washington and Tehran avoid war?

[lochinvar]

I predicted this back in November.

Who's next?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by chefencer

"That's the game of chicken. Two cars speed toward each other, head-on, late at night. There are three possible outcomes. One driver gets nervous and veers away at the last second; he loses. Both drivers veer away; the game's a draw. They both keep zooming straight ahead; everybody dies.

Except that at the moment the US is driving a bulldozer and Iran a Geo Metro. Kind of changes the probabilities.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Except that at the moment the US is driving a bulldozer and Iran a Geo Metro. Kind of changes the probabilities.

"Whether the pitcher hits the stone or the stone hits the pitcher, it's bound to be bad for the pitcher."

[chefencer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Except that at the moment the US is driving a bulldozer and Iran a Geo Metro. Kind of changes the probabilities.

True, in a conventional sense, but we live in the time of assymetrical conflict (and I'm not referring to shoes...). The U.S. economy can be a bit of a "pitcher" in spite of the strength of our military "rock". I don't have an answer, but I think tac nukes are going to create many more problems than they fix... I just realized we should probably put this thread with the other nuke one...
Anyway - I think the game of chicken continues and now the India deal has fallen off the menu board entirely.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by chefencer

Anyway - I think the game of chicken continues and now the India deal has fallen off the menu board entirely.

We can't lose. God speaks to our President.

[chefencer]

I'll have to refer you to :
Behold!...
on that one, Loch, as you're quite familar with that one...

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by chefencer

I'll have to refer you to :
Behold!...
on that one, Loch, as you're quite familar with that one...

Sorry. Forgot to put [facetious][/facetious] tags...

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

I wonder why Israeli, French, British, former Soviet and US nukes were left out of the title of this thread. The implication is that India, China and Iran are more likely to use them than the others. If I were to make a guess I would say that there is just as much likelyhood that one of the following scenarios will occur:

1) A preemptive nuclear strike being launched by Israel against an Islamic threat.

2) A wayward nuke from one of the former Soviet states being sold to a terrorist group.

3) The US using tactical nuclear weapons against an "Axis of Evil" target.

4) The French accidentally shooting themselves in the foot with a nuclear armed cruise missile.

The only one I think is off the hook is Great Britain because it has turned into such a multicultural society that they couldn't possibly launch a nuclear strike against any other nation without seriously offending large numbers of electoral constituants.

Seriously though, nuclear weapons are dangerous in anyone's hands.

[chefencer]

I agree with your points, and I see how the opening post might have had that implication, but in the 80's (and my examples) the discussion was all about exercising the nuclear option, because you didn't need a program to keep up with the players - primarily 2. I was remarking how complicated everything is in the '00's (insert the "interesting times" curse here) and wanted to know the forum's opinion on the current U.S. outreach to India butted up against the present effort against Iran. It seems more like a scary game of "whack-a-mole" rather than tic-tac-toe of "Wargames". But the late events in the 'dialogue' with Iran have changed the focus from "Why India?" to "India, who?".
I just thought it strange that I had this lingering nostalgia for M.A.D. when faced with the flavor of this complexly dangerous soup in which we're all simmering...

Quote:"The only one I think is off the hook is Great Britain because it has turned into such a multicultural society that they couldn't possibly launch a nuclear strike against any other nation without seriously offending large numbers of electoral constituants."
-Straw was the one who said the tac nuke story was "completely nuts"...